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).

The Distinguishing Marks of the Religious Affections of Jonathan Edwards

(The title derives from two of the most important works of Jonathan Edwards: The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God and A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections.)

Jonathan Edwards: the Man

It is difficult to overestimate the importance and impact of Jonathan Edwards on American Christianity. Even if you have never heard of this man before, if you are an American Christian you are very probably an heir of a spiritual heritage first articulated by this man.

Jonathan Edwards was born in 1703, the 5th of 11 children and the only son. His father and later his father in law were both clergymen, and heirs of the Puritan movement that settled in New England. Edwards had a profound experience of the love of God.

Edwards now saw that the universe was essentially personal, an emanation of the love and beauty of God, so that everything, even inanimate matter, was a personal communication from God.1

In Edwards own words:

After this my sense of divine things gradually increased, and became more and more lively, and had more of that inward sweetness. The appearance of every thing was altered; there seemed to be, as it were, a calm, sweet cast, or appearance of divine glory, in almost every thing.2

This sense of God’s beauty in all things, and the true Christian life as delight in the beauty, wonder and love of God would shape the rest of his ministry.

One more quote that gives insight into Edward's spiritual life before I go on to talk about why he is still so important today, and how both the Reformed and the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements can learn so much from him:

Once, as I rode out into the woods for my health, in 1737, having alighted from my horse in a retired place, as my manner commonly has been, to walk for divine contemplation and prayer, I had a view, that for me was extraordinary, of the glory of the Son of God, as Mediator between God and man, and his wonderful, great, full, pure and sweet grace and love, and meek and gentle condescension. This grace that appeared so calm and sweet, appeared also great above the heavens. The person of Christ appeared ineffably excellent, with an excellency great enough to swallow up all thought and conception—which continued, as near as I can judge, about an hour; which kept me the greater part of the time in a flood of tears, and weeping aloud. I felt an ardency of soul to be, what I know not otherwise how to express, emptied and annihilated; to lie in the dust, and to be full of Christ alone; to love him with a holy and pure love; to trust in him; to live upon him; to serve and follow him; and to be perfectly sanctified and made pure, with a divine and heavenly purity. I have several other times had views very much of the same nature, and which have had the same effects.3

Far from the stodgy, angry man who tried to scare people into heaven by preaching "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" (a sermon with much more grace than the title might suggest, and yet still atypical of Edwards in it's severity), Edwards was a man driven by the goodness of God more than anything else in both his life and his ministry.

Edwards and The Great Awakening

Though there were many revivals in the churches of New England before and during the lifetime of Jonathan Edwards, in 1734, following the sudden death of a young man, there came a raised interest in eternal matters among the youth of Northampton, Massachusetts. Edwards seized the moment and preached a poignant message that challenged the townsfolk to consider the impact of their own lives on their eternal state. By the fall of 1734, the youth of the town began to meet in homes for times of singing, Bible study and prayer. They were soon joined by the adults.

What followed from this beginning would be called The Great Awakening, which swept through all of New England and most of the rest of the colonies. There was never anything like it in the Americas, nor possibly anywhere else before, and, some would argue, since. There were thousands of salvations, and amazing, unheard of outward expressions. Entire towns became so caught up in the wave of spiritual awakening that work was left undone, businesses poorly run or left unattended altogether, and nearly everyone was talking about spiritual matters, singing songs, studying their Bibles, praying together publicly and privately, and listening to sermons and other teachings on spiritual matters.

During the Great Awakening, there were many excesses. There were many different kinds of what we might now call manifestations, which were largely unknown by many during Edwards’ day. These included loud weeping, shouting, and fainting. (There were other, bizarre manifestations as well which troubled Edwards and his opponents, but I'll not mention them here.) At one point Edwards’ wife was so overcome by the power of God, after reading some of the poetry of Isaac Watts (the great hymn writer, and contemporary of Edwards), that she had to be carried to bed. Edwards referred to this phenomenon as "losing of strength;" it's known in our day as "being slain in the Spirit" or "going down under the power." 

Many of Edwards’ contemporaries dismissed these outward expressions (i.e., manifestations) as mere emotionalism brought on by a kind of mass hysteria. Others saw them as sure evidence of the power of the Holy Spirit at work in people. Edwards took a wise, moderating position and understood that one cannot conclude by the nature of the experience itself anything about whether it was from God, the devil or something else. To know that it was from God, one had to observe the life of the individual following the experience. He wrote his ideas on this and on the entire movement we call the Great Awakening in a wonderful work called Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God.

Just as important, and for many even more important, is his Treatise on the Religious Affections. By "affections" Edwards refers the believer's heart. Edwards was convinced, in contrast to his "old light" opponents that "true religion" as he called it ("authentic faith" is how we might express the same idea) is found in a heart-felt experience of God's love, goodness, power, majesty, sovereignty, etc., that sets one's life on a course of true godliness and piety, including evidence of all of the fruit of the Spirit mentioned in Galatians 5:22-23. 

In these two works Edwards gives the church two marvelous gifts. First, in Distinguishing Marks, he gives the church the tools it needs to discern whether or not, and to what degree, a move might be a move of God. So much of the criticism of the established church, of the Pentecostal movement, of Charismatic meetings, let alone of such phenomena as the Toronto Outpouring, would be itself both corrected and directed by this work. Edwards suggests that manifestations (as we would call them in our day), whether present or absent, say nothing positive nor negative about a movement. What counts is that belief in the person and work of the Jesus of the Bible increases, that the interests of satan's kingdom (especially in the area of sin and ungodliness) are undermined, that people's interest in and esteem for the Scriptures increases, that people become more interested in the truth, and that love to God and others increases (all of these are based on 1John 4:1-8). He would also argue that the lack of these in some individuals should not be allowed to tarnish the entirety of the movement.

Second, and just as important, in Religious Affections, Edwards clearly states that authentic Christianity ("true religion"), is primarily a matter of the heart. During Edwards' day, this was a matter of debate. Particularly in reaction to excesses in the Great Awakening. The "old lights" as they were called, argued that "true religion" was primarily a matter of intellectual enlightenment, and that any emotionalism was actually harmful to the pursuit of sound and true doctrine. Edwards and the "new lights" argued the opposite. While not at all opposed to intellectual enlightenment, Edwards makes the case in Religious Affections, that God is after our hearts, not only our minds. In fact he argues that mere intellectual enlightenment is insufficient and no evidence of conversion. He then lays out a scheme by which one can know whether what is going on in our hearts is of God. This work laid the foundation for American Evangelicalism (which would benefit greatly from a careful reading of this book!).

In both works, he echoes what Jesus said of discerning a true prophet from a false one: "By their fruit you will recognize them." (Matthew 7:15). In other words, it isn't the kind of manifestation or affection that is significant, it's the fruit in the life that follows that's the key to understanding what is from God and what isn't.

Conclusions:

As I hang out in two camps that are often a bit (sometimes quite a bit!) suspicious of each other (Reformed and Pentecostal/Charismatic), I find the insight in Edwards to be more helpful than any other in navigating the strengths and pitfalls in both camps. I also find (over and over again) that Edwards' insights keep on being rediscovered, as if for the first time, by people in both camps. 

If I may, I'd like to suggest that my companions in the Reformed camp read Distinguishing Marks--especially those with a theological openness to all the spiritual gifts, but still find themselves to be cessationist in practice. This work is a great help in navigating the pitfalls and fears (founded and unfounded) we find in the exercise of spiritual gifts.

I would also like to suggest to my companions in the Pentecostal/Charismatic camp, to read Religious Affections. This work is a tremendous help in navigating the distinctions between true from counterfeit religious experiences. I know this is an issue that many, especially leaders struggle with. You'll find Edwards to be very helpful here (IMHO, of course).

-------------------------

1 George M. Marsden, A Short Life of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, and Allen C. Guelzo, Library of Religious Biography (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), p.21.

2 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), p. xi.

3 Works p. lxxxix

Going Through the Motions

I'm not sure how many people I'm going to make uncomfortable with this blog, if any. And my thoughts here aren't entirely clear either, so if I meander a bit, bear with me.

Not a Religion but a Relationship

The new phrase all the cool Christians are saying is "Christianity isn't a religion but a relationship." I get that--at least I get the point of that. It's not very accurate,* but I get it.

I understand the impulse to be "religious," meaning someone who goes through the motions, does "churchy" things, uses certain words in certain ways, and does certain actions that are intended to move the spiritual world in some way. As a protestant and child of the reformation, I quickly think of Roman Catholics crossing themselves, lighting candles, saying the rosary and the like.  It's the thing that other people do, some self-imposed, or man-made religious looking/feeling action. (Apologies to my Catholic friends for caricaturing what they're doing.)

A couple of years ago I attended a large, seeker-oriented church where this phrase was spoken. The service began on time, there was a band that played a few songs (that a few in the audience sang along with), followed by a man coming out, shirt untucked from his jeans (like all the really cool pastors), and talked about a multi-step project this church had adopted to deepen their discipleship. There may have been an offering next (maybe earlier) and then we left. If we were supposed to not be doing religion, but having a relationship, I wondered with whom we were supposed to have a relationship that morning, as not a single prayer was said--isn't communication sort of necessary for relationship?

Let's move our focus now to a Pentecostal worship setting. One would hear this phrase (not religion but relationship) here too. If you attended the kind of Pentecostal churches I did, you'd find a welcome, about 30 minutes of worship, led by a (usually) skilled band, there might be people flagging, dancing, some might shout, there could be someone laying flat on the ground (on their back or face down). There would certainly be people raising their hands. There could be speaking or singing in tongues. It all seems to flow pretty freely, but if you went back the next week you'd probably see almost exactly the same thing, just the songs would change (maybe). It might even be that same person laying on the floor in the same spot. In other words, there is a set pattern of behavior here too; a particular set of practices.

Now let's go to a more 'traditional' service--a tradition that goes back at least into the 1950's, whether Evangelical, main-line or Reformed. You'd also find a fixed order of service, with probably more elements (Call to worship, opening hymn of praise, greeting from God, mutual greeting, etc.). If you heard the phrase "it's not a religion, it's a relationship" it would probably be a part of the sermon.

What's my point? If religion is a set of beliefs and practices, then we're all doing religion! Further, I think we're supposed to! (Don't worry, I'll qualify this statement later!) Any relationship that doesn't include some sort of outward behavior isn't really a relationship!

I have a relationship with my wife. That means we do certain things together, some of those things are quite predictable. There are some fixed sets of behaviors that we just do. We eat at certain times, we give each other a "good night" and "good morning" kiss, etc. Now it's possible to just go through the motions of these behaviors (and maybe sometimes we do), but the pattern of behaviors is the framework within which the relationship happens.

As human beings we need a behavioral framework within which a relationship can flourish. In all of the examples above (including the Catholic ones), the particular beliefs and patterns of behavior (religion) provide the occasion for something more to happen. Sure religion says "Do" and Christianity says "Done," but beyond the cleverness of that phrase, there's no such thing as a relationship where you're not doing something together!

Seeing Our Own Blind Spots

Somewhere between the flesh and the devil, there emerges a tendency to 'just' do the stuff. That is, our focus had never been on the One we are supposed to be worshiping, or over time our focus changes from God to what we are doing as we worship. So instead of praying, we just say prayers; instead of worshiping we just sing songs. We sometimes don't even know when we shifted our focus.

We find ourselves drifting to worshipiness (apologies to Steven Colbert). For some this worshipiness is found in the artistry of a well-crafted liturgy, connected to an ancient spiritual heritage, full of rich symbology and mystery. For others, this worshipiness looks like deeply stirred emotions (but still just "soulish"), that seem to reach down to the depths of our souls, and call forth expressions that we find hard to put into words. For still others, worshipiness looks like truths that move the mind to think higher thoughts, and give us deeper understanding of the great doctrines of the faith, the recapitulation of the highest theological attainments of our tradition. For yet others, worshipiness looks like the stirring of the call to justice and compassion for the poor and oppressed, an impartation of courage and conviction to take action on behalf of those unable to act.

The problem with worshipiness: God can be a million miles away and the 'worshipiness' can still happen. We can feel like we worshiped, we can think we worshiped, but if we worshiped it wasn't God we were worshiping.

There is no difference between a priest raising the chalice in a "high church" setting, or a prophet blowing the shofar in a Pentecostal revival conference, or a preacher cleverly explaining the difference between the words "inerrant" and "infallible," or an activist washing the feet of a poor person, if all that's going on is somebody raising a cup, making noise, defining terms, or illustrating a point. Anyone can do any of those things in such a way that they'll have as much spiritual impact as spending the day bowling and drinking beer.

It's so much easier to look at the blind spots in the practices of others, than it is to see them in ourselves. If you noticed that as you were reading this blog, good for you!

It's Just Magic

There's a really bizzarre thing that happens in all of these streams: it happens when we begin to believe that certain actions themselves have spiritual powers.

A few years ago people who wanted to sell their property would bury a statue of Joseph (husband of Mary, father of Jesus), upside down in their backyard. Amazingly people reported that their property sold much more quickly than they expected. Then the prayer of Jabez thing started happening. In both cases, people were doing things or saying words in a way that suggested they had magical powers. Huh?

I've seen this same bizzarreness show up in the colors some use to decorate places where spiritual events happen, the types of scented oils they use for anointing, the type of bread used for communion, the blowing of the shofar, the waving of flags, the repetition of words or phrases to drive away demons, the imaginary taking up of the 'sword of the Spirit' by saying the words and pretending to take up an imaginary sword, the insistence on the use of certain, Latinized theological terms, the use of "Thee" and "Thou" and other "King James English" when addressing God, or the insistence on saying "Yeshua" instead of "Jesus," and on and on.

On the flip side is the fear or disdain induced when a certain version of the Bible is suggested, in how certain objects in popular culture are "actually" shown to be objects of the occult, where candles in certain settings are rejected on the grounds that they are "Catholic," or the use of English in the mass is rejected because it's too "modern," where concepts like meditation, trances, visions are all rejected because they sound to much like "new age," or the rejection of idea that the creation account in Genesis 1-2 teaches us primarily something other than how creation happened on the grounds that it sounds like compromise with the secular world, and if you don't end your prayer by saying "in Jesus' name, amen," it doesn't even count (in spite of the fact that no prayer in the Bible ends that way!).

There are certain terms, certain practices, certain concepts that have risen above their place of actual importance and have taken on seemingly magical powers. They move heaven, or move hell, or both, just by doing certain things or saying certain words in certain ways. It doesn't even matter if you understand what you're doing, or believe what your saying, or are aware of the presence of God (or any other spiritual reality). Just by saying or doing things, something happens in the spiritual realm -- or so we imagine. I suspect that often the only thing that happens is in our imagination.

If Jesus had only healed one blind man, how many would be studying the types of dirt used to make mud, and what a typical Jewish diet might by that would produce just the right kind of saliva? I'm quite certain that someone, somewhere would be selling the formula and demonstrating positive results!

Somehow we've mistaken technique for the way of truth.

In Spirit and In Truth

Jesus primary teaching on worship in John 4, emphasizes that what the Father is seeking are those who worship "in Spirit and in truth" (John 4:23-24) Without going into a long discussion of what that means, I'll just summarize: God wants us to worship with our spirits, with the help of the Spirit and worship Him authentically based on the Who He really is (there's deliberate ambiguity in the terms "spirit" and "truth"). Jesus says that the rituals of worship in the temple are finished, their time is over (John 4:21). God never really did care about the blood of bulls and goats (e.g., Psalm 51:16; Isaiah 1:11). He was always after people's hearts (e.g., Deut. 6:5; 10:12), not rote obedience.

When we just 'go through the motions,' we are missing the mark. When we ascribe magical powers to certain actions, words or concepts, whether positively or negatively, we miss the mark. When our hearts are more in tune with what we are doing, what we are saying, what we are thinking than on God Himself, we miss the mark.

Actually what God really wants from us is a relationship, not just certain forms of busyness! He doesn't want mere religiosity,* no matter the shape (even the shape of so-called "free worship"). What He wants is our hearts turned toward Him completely, from the core of who we are. This will take the form of actions, even certain actions like prayer, singing, reading or listening to Scripture, etc., and those actions (in whole or in part) are absolutely necessary! But the activity isn't what's important; what's important is the inclination of our hearts.

What or Whom do we have in focus? With all due deference to the bard, that is the question.

-------------------------
*I prefer the term 'religiosity' over 'religion,' since it conveys more clearly where the problem lies.

What Does it Mean to Be Saved?

I started writing this blog this morning by beginning to sum up the various theories of the atonement* and show how they all contribute something to our understanding of our salvation. It quickly became obvious to me that to try to do that, would require something book length, rather than blog length. So, I decided to lower my aim a bit, and just talk about the outcome of my current perspective on what Jesus has won for us in our atonement, without comparing or contrasting with the major views.

More than Zero

To listen to some presentations of the Gospel, and some explanations of how our salvation works, one can quickly get the idea that in paying the penalty for our sin, an amount we could never pay, Jesus got our bank account with God back to zero. Not that it's said quite that way, but the effect is the same. Jesus paid our penalty and some day we get to go to heaven instead of hell. In this presentation we sometimes hear that we go before the Judge (God), Satan, the prosecuting attorney comes with a list of charges, our Advocate (Jesus) holds out the piece of paper that says "Paid in Full" and the Judge says "Case Dismissed." We then walk out of the courtroom through door "A" into heaven, rather than door "B" into hell. And that's the end of it.

Now, I'm all in favor of getting out of hell! Come on! Eternal punishment, flames of fire, it's a horrible place, as the Bible describes it. I'm thankful to Jesus for getting me out of there! But is that it? Is that all there is to our salvation: that we don't have to be punished for eternity, but instead, some day, we get to enjoy the eternal bliss of playing harps while floating on clouds or something?

If all we have is that our insurmountable debt is paid, that's good, I suppose. But all that gets us is a zero balance. It's really easy to get in debt again, if all you have is zero. Maybe that's why we keep up the cycle of sin/repent: we have no way of getting our head above water -- so to speak.

But getting to zero does not at all sound like what the Bible tells us about what it means to be saved, does it?

Life to the Full

Jesus said that his purpose was to do far more than get us back to zero. He came that [we] may have life, and have it to the full (John 10:10). Some translations have "abundantly" here. The point is that Jesus' understanding of what He was doing was that we would have a life abounding in goodness, not merely a life without the threat of punishment.

The idea that this abundant life was exclusively something that we would experience in the afterlife seems to be completely absent from the context. There is no danger of a thief coming to steal and kill and destroy in heaven! The situation is now--this life. Now is when Jesus is offering us life to the full or life abundantly.

What Jesus has won for us on the cross is much more than our "Get out of Hell free" card. He offers us much more than a zero balance on our account with God. He offers us abundance. He offers us the Kingdom, in fact He gives us the keys to it!

Life in the Kingdom is more than hope about the life to come. Since we live in the Kingdom of God now, we can expect the benefits of the Kingdom of God now. It's true that the Kingdom is still breaking in, and hasn't yet taken over the planet, but it is, in fact, breaking in.

The greatest gift in the Kingdom, apart from the gift of salvation that gets us into the Kingdom, is the gift of the Holy Spirit! He comes to live within us. He takes up permanent residence and is at work in us helping us in our battle with sin and the flesh (Romans 8:13-14), he leads us and produces the fruit of the character of Christ in us (Galatians 5:22-23).

Since the Spirit is within us and upon us, here are some of the things we can also expect to find in the Kingdom (at least from time to time): healing the sick, cleansing the lepers, raising the dead, casting out demons (Matthew 10:8) hearing God's voice (John 10:4), messages of wisdom & knowledge, miracles, prophecy, discernment of spirits, speaking in tongues & interpretation (1Cor.12:8-10). Those aren't for some "spiritual elite," they're for everyone in the Kingdom; they belong to those who belong to Christ.

Our salvation wins for us all of the above, and more! Of course our future will be even more glorious--more glorious than we are capable of imagining. But the Gospel is not just in the future tense. It's present tense because it's present now.

There's much more that I could say, and maybe I will in a future blog.

-------------------------
*This site summarizes several theories of the atonement (the doctrine of salvation), though it is quite biased toward one of them.

I Am Not a Sinner

Sometimes I kill mosquitoes, but that doesn't make me an exterminator.  I built a fence in our back yard, but that doesn't make me a builder. I sometimes tell jokes, but that doesn't make me a comedian. I have a cajón I play sometimes, but that doesn't make me a percussionist (believe me!). Sometimes I sin, but that doesn't make me a sinner.

I first learned this lesson from reading a book by Neil Anderson on spiritual warfare. There is not a single time that God's people are called "sinners" in the Bible. In the Bible "sinners" are always those on the outside of the Kingdom.

When I say "I am not a sinner," I'm not saying I don't ever sin. I'm saying that's not who I am.

Paul says something very interesting toward the end of Romans 7 that I have pondered for a very long time. In Romans 7, Paul talks about his inability to do the good he wants to do. That's not the part I had trouble with. However, what Paul says below seemed like some sort of denial; it didn't feel right. Yet there it was in the Bible, and Paul says it twice! Here are the passages (I underlined the part I was having trouble with):

And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. (Ro 7:16–17)  

For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. (Romans 7:19–20)  

Now, what is this? Doesn't that look like a cop-out? It sounds like, "Hey, I did it, but it wasn't me doing it." Huh? How does that even make sense?!

Unpacking Romans 7:7-25

Before I tell you how I see that passage now, let's do a little study first and compare this with the following chapter.

In the Greek language (unlike English) it is usually not necessary to say "I" (Greek ego - ἐγώ). Like Spanish, one can assume that I'm talking about my by the conjugation of the verb. For instance in Spanish I can say "Voy a la casa," meaning "I'm going home." You'd know I meant I was going because of the verb form I used. If I said "Vamos a la casa," you'd know I meant "Let's go home." I don't need to say "Yo voy a la casa," which would sound a bit like "I, I'm going home." I'd only add the "Yo" ("I"), if I wanted to emphasize who was the one going home.

Sorry for the Spanish lesson, but here's the point: in this regard Greek is the same. Unlike English, we can know that Paul is talking about himself by the verb conjugation he uses. The really interesting thing is that in Romans 7:7-15, Paul uses the pronoun for "I" twenty-three (23) times (counting in Greek, not English). He does not use it at all in Romans 8--not once.

Isn't that interesting? What does that mean?

Romans 7:7-25 is Paul talking about his inability to do what he knows is right. Romans 8:1-17 is about how to live rightly before God. What is present in Romans 8, that seems to take the place of "I" (ἐγώ) is flesh (Greek: sarx, σάρξ).* When Paul does this we learn something about what he means by "flesh" namely it's me - but more specifically it's me without the Spirit (cf., Rom 7:18). It's us, trying to do it on our own, without God's help.

What we find in Romans 8 is that with the Spirit's help we can set our minds on what the Spirit desires (Rom 8:5), that we can live in the realm of the Spirit (Rom 8:9), that by the Spirit we can put to death the misdeeds of the body (Rom 8:13). In other words, in ourselves we have no hope to live a godly life, but empowered by the Spirit we can and should expect to! If Romans 7 seems like moral failure, Romans 8 offers moral victory! But it's a victory that is won by the Spirit living in us, and by being led by Him--that is by following His lead.

Who or What is Doing the Sinning?

Now let's get back to the strange statement of Paul in Romans 7:17, 20: it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

What is Paul talking about here? Paul is talking about his inner conflict and his inability to understand himself in this. He does what he hates, and what he wants to do, he can't. He resolves the dilemma by stating that it's not him, but something living in him causing the problem. He even names that thing living in him as "sin."

We get the idea that Paul thinks about the sin living in him as not really him. The problem isn't him, the problem is not who he is; he isn't the problem. Something else is the problem. It's in him but it isn't him.

My theological and spiritual upbringing did not equip me to understand what Paul was actually saying here. I picked up that I was sinful by nature--even as a believer, and that's why I sinned. That is to say, when I sinned I was just being my true self. I was assured that I would still be forgiven, but I felt doomed to live a sinful life, until I died or the Lord returned. I was a sinner, but I was still under grace. I must admit, I did not feel much incentive for self-improvement! Why try, when failure is guaranteed! When I got myself more edumacated, I equated the endeavor with the myth of Sisyphus, condemned by the Greek gods to push a boulder up a hill, but whenever the boulder got near the top, it would roll back to the bottom: an act of eternal frustration.

The teaching of Neil Anderson I referenced above began to change my understanding of who we really are in Christ, and eventually how to understand Paul's statements above. The New Testament always speaks of believers as "saints" - that is "holy ones." It never qualifies this, to let us think that we are to understand this in some potential sense. Most of the Epistles begin "To the saints in..."

We are supposed to believe the Bible, right? So if they Bible always talks about believers as holy ones (saints), and if we are believers, what are we? Holy ones, of course. And who are the "sinners?" Those outside the Kingdom; those who are not (yet) believers. We are no longer identified as sinners, because "sinner" is no longer our identity.

In Christ we are a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come (2Cor 5:17). In our new selves, we are not what we were.

When sin shows up, what happens is that there's something going on that is out of sync with our new identity. It's not the real us; it's not the real me. That's not who I really am. That is exactly what Paul is saying. When we sin, we are acting outside our true character, we are behaving in a way inconsistent with our true identity. In fact, it's not even us doing it--not the real us.

The "sin living in us" is more like a parasite living in our intestine. It's foreign. It doesn't belong. It shouldn't be there. While parasites can't make us sin, they can make us physically ill. In the same way sin living in us, even though it isn't a part of us, can make us spiritually ill. The problem isn't us, it's something that doesn't belong, staying in residence after it's been evicted.

When God gave the land of Canaan to the Israelites as they crossed the Jordan, led by Joshua, the land was theirs, but they still had to "take possession" of it. They still had battles to fight. The peoples who lived their, still lived there, but they weren't Israelites, so they didn't belong. God, through Joshua, and subsequent leaders, removed them incrementally. Similarly, there's stuff in me that doesn't belong. God is removing it incrementally. But the important thing to know for this blog entry is that it doesn't belong, it's not supposed to be there, and I'm under no obligation to live with it (Rom 8:12-13).

This isn't the same as some of what's come out of the holiness movement. I'm not saying we can get a second blessing to keep us from ever sinning again. I'm not saying we don't sometimes sin. I am saying that, if I sin, that doesn't make me a "sinner" any more than putting bread in a toaster makes me a cook.

I am not a sinner. That's not who I am. I'm a saint--a holy one. God says so.

-----------------------------
*The NIV84 wrongly (IMHO) puts "sinful nature" here; the NIV2011 rightly reverts to "flesh."

Authority in Kingdom Relationships

In this blog I'm going to be reflecting on the way we think about authority affects our relationships with fellow believers in the Kingdom of God.

I won't be talking about the authority the Kingdom of God has over the kingdom of darkness, or the authority the Kingdom of God has over sickness, brokenness, death, etc. That would make an interesting blog too. But not today.

What is authority?

There are two main answers to this question, even in just using everyday language (at least in English language). I'll talk about those two types and then take a look at what the Bible says about authority.

The first answer: Authority is telling people what to do, and making them do it.
The second answer: Authority is influencing others' hearts and lives through one's identity, experience and expertise.

Let's look at both of them along with some common examples.

The first type of authority is what we find in the military, and among police, the fire service and ems (Emergency Medical Services). The way we know who has the authority in a given situation is by looking at the position of the people involved. A Major has authority over a Captain, who has authority over a Lieutenant, etc. There is a hierarchy of power and authority that gives order to the relationships, and lets everyone know their place in that hierarchy.

The down-side of this structure is that it must be enforced to work. There must be consequences for disobedience, for failure to follow orders. There must be a reason for those under authority to do what they're told, beyond the charisma of the one with the position - not because charisma and rapport in leadership aren't important (they are!), but because there are always those who will not submit to it without some sort of coercive incentive, and because there are times when fear would make someone hesitate from doing what is necessary. There is much more I could say about this, but I'm not writing a book!

This type of structure is extremely helpful in crisis situations, such as a battlefield, or a domestic emergency scene (such as a fire, a hostage situation, a medical emergency). In an emergency there simply isn't time to take an inventory of what jobs the responders would prefer. Conferring for the purpose of consensus takes too long. If we already know who the decision-makers are, the whole company can respond quickly and address the situation before it gets worse. I trust this is obvious. As a former volunteer firefighter and fire captain, I fully understand why this authority structure is so helpful.

The Biblical support for this type of authority can be found in Romans 13:4: For he [the governor/ruler] is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

The second type of authority is found in people like Emily Post (an authority on etiquette), Dr. Phil (on relationships, etc.), Neil Anderson (on spiritual warfare), and others such as John Piper, Tim Keller, Bill Johnson, John & Carol Arnott - some of whom are authorities in some circles and not in others. This is the kind of thing that makes us say that someone is an authority on Shakespeare, or on certain medical procedures, or wood-working, or Egyptology.

We look for these authorities when we go into a research library, or research something on the internet. We don't want to hear what just anyone has to say, we want to know what the experts have to say--the authorities in the fields we are looking into.

This is not a denial of what is sometimes called "positional authority" (see the first type of authority, above), it's just a different way of looking at authority. In fact, these two types are often comingled, so that the ones with the position of authority, are the best ones for the job.

In churches, and other Christian organizations, positions and positional authority is necessary to make the organization work. But this works best when we fill positions with people who are already walking in the kind of authority the position recognizes or confers. We want to install elders who are already functioning as and recognized as spiritual leaders in the church in some way. We want treasurers who we know to be good at managing bank accounts, budgets, etc. (even if it's just their family budget). We want directors of organization who have some ability to lead people, administrators who have shown they can administer, and so on.

What is Biblical Authority?

I believe the starting point for understanding Biblical authority is Jesus teaching on authority in Matthew 20:25-28 (cf. Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:24-30).

²⁵Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. ²⁶Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, ²⁷and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— ²⁸just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (NIV)

In this text there are at least 6 things we can learn from Jesus about authority:

1.     Authority as it is practiced outside the kingdom is not the model for authority in the Kingdom. (vv.25-16a)

2.     The model of authority in the Kingdom is not structured as a chain of command. (vv.25-16a)

3.     Authority in the Kingdom serves others in the Kingdom. (vv.26-27)

4.     Authority in the Kingdom does not seek to be served (v.28a).

5.     Authority in the Kingdom is sacrificial for the sake of the many (v.28b).

6.     Jesus’ way of exercising His authority is our model (v.28).

Explanation of these points:
#1 Jesus says, in effect, look at the world in and around Judea. Do you see how they do authority? Don't do it that way here.

#2 Jesus points out the hierarchy of rulers lording it over, who have high officials over them. This model he specifically rejects: Not so with you. This passages follows directly upon the request of James and John's mother to set up her two sons over the rest of the disciples. Jesus is saying: that's not how things are supposed to work in my Kingdom.

#3 It's clear that Jesus sees that the nature of authority in the Kingdom is about serving others. That is, authority in the Kingdom by nature seeks to serve those under that authority.

#4 Jesus, pointing to himself points out that He never used His authority to get others to serve Him. He is not the General ordering the Lieutenant to get him a cup of coffee. He is the General getting the cup of coffee for the Lieutenant.

#5 The nature of the authority as service, extends to the point of being self-sacrificial. The General doesn't send the Privates to die on the battlefield, while he is safe behind the lines. The General goes out on the battlefield and to die, so that the Privates stay safe.

#6 Strongly implied in that last verse, is that we take Jesus' way of relating to His disciples in His authority as our model for relating to others in our authority. To do that thoroughly, we would need to do an in depth study of the relational dynamics between Jesus and His disciples throughout His ministry. (I'll leave it to the reader to do that.)

But is this for all relationships in the Kingdom, or just how the Apostles are to relate to each other?

Some commentaries I consulted suggested that Jesus was obviously not talking about the relationship of the Apostles to the churches, but just the Apostles as they related to each other. Others suggested that Jesus is talking about all relationships in the Kingdom where there is an authority aspect in play. Which is right?

Let's look at the Bible again. I'll give two examples where the Apostles apply the principles from the passage above to the churches:

Paul following up on a major ethical issue in the church in Corinth:

Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm. (2Cor. 1:24)

This is Paul's interpretation of his actions in 1Corinthians 5. He is not claiming the right of Apostolic authority over them, requiring their obedience, that is, he was not trying to lord it over your faith. Instead he interprets his actions as working with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm. In reading 1Corinthians 5 in this light, one can see Paul using persuasion; he wants them to agree with him on how to look at and deal with this situation. He speaks forcefully, but still wants them to buy in to his way of approaching the issue.

Peter addressing the elders of the scattered churches says:

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. (1Pet. 5:2–3)  

It's clear here, that Peter is applying the same principles we find in the Matthew 20 passage to the relationship between elders and the church in which they exercise authority. It's also evident that Peter is urging what I referred to above as type 2 authority. Note this: eager to serve and being examples to the flock.

I'm going to briefly mention Paul's letter to Philemon
In this letter Paul keeps balking at using his authority to tell Philemon what he so obviously wants him to do: set Onesimus free. Although he urges, appeals to, and drops some obvious and strong hints, he doesn't tell Philemon what to do. He leaves the final decision in his hands.

Here are some examples of what I mean:

Phm 8-9a Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. 

Phm 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced.

Phm 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.  (BTW, the word for “obedience” here can also be translated “response/answer”)

What seems so clear in a careful reading of this passage is that Paul is empowering Philemon with all he needs to do the right thing, but not by directly telling him what to do. In effect, he, by persuasion, destroys the foundation for slavery in Philemon's heart & mind, but let's him be the one to push the wall over. This is such a great example of what Biblical authority is supposed to look like.

Church Office, AKA, the 5-Fold Ministry

Ephesians 4:11-16
Some of my friends would challenge on grammatical grounds whether we should see 5 offices or 4 in Ephesians 4:11 (seeing pastors and teachers as one office). I'm not going to debate the point here, though I'm attracted to the way someone put it, there are grammatically 4, but practically 5. Regardless, resolving that question won't help us answer ours, so I'll just leave it where it lies.

After listing these positions in the church, Paul gives us the purpose of these positions. The purpose of these places of positional authority is not to consolidate power, it's not to get people to obey, or keep them in line, or make them do what they wouldn't do otherwise. The purpose of these offices is clearly stated: to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the whole body of Christ may be built up (Eph 4:12). This includes exercising that authority in such a way that the result is spiritual maturity (Eph 4:13), giving the members strength to stand firm in the face of lies and opposition (Eph 4:14), and helping them grow spiritually into their place in the body (Eph 4:15), all because the body is not held together by these offices, nor those who hold them, but by Jesus Himself (Eph 4:16).

The biggest problem with authority as telling people what to do, is that it creates dependence. If you can only do what the pastor says, if nothing can be done, unless someone in authority orders it, we become dependent on those in authority to do anything. Domineering parents, who control everything that happens in the home, create dependent children, who do not have the maturity to stand up to the temptations of the world, once they are out of the nest. Domineering spiritual leaders create spiritually immature followers, who don't know what to do, unless they are told.

But authority in the church, as Paul says in this passage, is not for creating dependence, but maturity. Authority in the church is supposed to be exercised in a way that develops spiritual maturity in others. Parents of young children know that they must be told what to do. But as children grow up, they transition from being told, to being persuaded (often by consequences, enforced or 'natural'). To be an adult means you know how to navigate through the many confusing choices in our world, and if we mess up, what to do about it. Similarly, in the Church, the purpose of authority is to help people grow up into their own identity in Christ, until they know how to respond to the wind and the waves of change, temptation, and doctrine that are sure to come.

To put it simply what my Reformed friends call the 4/5 offices, and my Pentecostal friends call the 5-Fold Ministry, exists for the church, not the other way around. They exist to serve the church, not to be served by it.

What about Hebrews 13:17?

Some of you may already be thinking of the one place where we seem to be told to obey our leaders (following the Type 1 style of authority noted above). Let's take a quick look at that, in context.

Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Heb 13:17)  

Most translations have Obey here. But if you hover over the link, you'll see the NIV2011, which has Have confidence in.... What's going on?

The word for Obey in the original language (Greek) is “Peitho” (πείθω), not one of the more common words for "obey" in the New Testament. The basic meaning of the word, is "to persuade," and in the passive voice (as here) "to be persuaded," or "believe." It has the sense of following someone's example. It doesn't mean what the word obey usually implies in the English language: comply whether you like it or not. But it does mean that one's actions will be shaped by the one you are persuaded by. In other words, we ought not to see in this verse a call for people to blindly obey their spiritual leaders, but to do something along the lines of what verse 7 in this chapter says.

Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. (Heb 13:7)  

If the author of Hebrews wanted to emphasize the relationship of member to leader as one of obedience, he would have had to make his point more clearly than he did. As it is, he urges them to imitate [the] faith of their leaders (v.7), or to obey/be persuaded by them, suggesting that the relationship is not one of submissive/dominant, but of learner/model.

How does this affect the marriage relationship?

I'm so glad you asked!

Let's take a look at Paul's most extensive discussion on the marriage relationship: Ephesians 5:21-33. (I'm not going to put that entire long passage here. If you have a Bible handy, you may want to open it to that passage.)

You'll note first of all, that I'm beginning with verse 21, not verse 22. Although most English versions make a split between verses 21 and 22, in the original language, verses 21 and 22 are part of the same sentence. In fact, that rather long, Pauline sentence begins with verse 18! The "submitting to one another" in verse 21, is fourth in a list of participles that tell us what it means to be filled by the Spirit. When we are filled with the Spirit, according to Paul, we will Speak to one another..., Sing and make music... be always giving thanks..., and Submit to one another...  To be more literal we would read this passage something like this "Be filled with the Spirit, speaking..., singing..., giving thanks..., submitting..."

So, one thing it means to be filled with the Spirit is to Submit to one another... (v.21). That's because we need each other. Paul says in Philippians 2:3 ...in humility consider others better than yourselves. Here's how I understand that passage: God is at work in your life in ways He's not at work in mine. Some things in you are better than those things in me. There is no one I can't learn from and become a better person than I am now, if I am ready to receive from them. Submitting to each other (back to our Ephesians passage now), has that benefit and blessing. The moment I believe there is no one for me to submit to, is the moment I believe that I have 'arrived' spiritually, and therefore bought into a lie.

A further aspect of submission is one that, if it were present in some fallen leaders, it may have prevented their fall. When we submit to each other, we invite them to speak into our lives, speak truth to us. We invite them to show us our 'gold' and help us see our 'muck.' Too many times, leaders surround themselves with people that submit to them, but to whom they will not submit to. The results are almost always the same: their ministry collapses. I'll not point to specific examples, but know that this happens in small ministries as well as big ones. 

Paul applies this principle of submission to one another, to the church first and then to marriage. 

In verse 22 of our passage the word 'submit' does not occur in the Greek text. It literally says (from verse 21) "Submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ, wives to your own husbands as to the Lord..." Paul moves without a breath from submission as applied generally, to a more specific application in the context of the marriage relationship.

Let's not pull any punches here, The way that wives are called to relate to their husbands requires surprising devotion: as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. That's a tall order! My goodness! There's not much wiggle-room in here is there!

Let's take a look at the word "submit" though. This word literally means to place oneself under. We should rightly infer that here it means to place oneself under the authority of one's husband. (I'm not going to address the hotly debated concept of headship here, since even if we resolved it, it wouldn't help us, as I hope we'll all see as the rest of my discussion unfolds.). It means to place oneself under someone or something else.

However, it's also important to note what it doesn't mean. Submit does not mean to allow oneself to be coerced. It does not imply blind obedience. Being connected with "out of reverence for Christ" strongly implies, that if a husband should tell his wife to do something that would violate a wife's reverence for Christ, she should refuse. If he tells her, to go and sacrifice to the goddess Dianna (the celebrated deity of Ephesus), she should tell him that she won't do it.

In thinking about the concept of the wife submitting to her husband, it's very significant to know one more important fact: the Bible nowhere, in not a single place, tells wives to obey their husbands. Nor does it tell husbands to make their wives obey them. Never. Not once. Anywhere. Look it up yourself, if you must. Paul does tell children to obey their parents, and slaves to obey their masters (chapter 6), but he doesn't tell wives to obey their husbands. Not here, not anywhere.

Whatever submission means it is not a synonym for obey.

I need to say something about husbands here too, don't I? If I don't, this whole thing would like like a one-sided submission, when this section on marriage in Ephesians 5 is introduced with submit to one another.

Husbands are called (IMHO) to even greater selflessness than wives are. Look at this: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25). Paul doesn't stop there, but let's pause for a moment. How does Christ love the church? How much? What does He do for her? Remember our passage above: I did not come to be served, but to serve. A husband who treats his wife as his 'gopher' or his live-in maid, is not treating her as Christ treated the church. 

But wait, there's more! ...and gave himself up for her means that husbands are to relate to their wives self-sacrificially. They are to lay down their lives for the sake of their wives. That's a Christ-like husband.

Further, the husband's job is to make his wife look brilliant: radiant, stain and wrinkle free (Eph 5:27). Pointing out all her mistakes and failures to her or anyone else, is certainly contrary to what it means to present her as holy and blameless.

Before moving on, let me say one more thing about this to married couples. Wives, it's not your job to make sure your husband does his. Husbands, it's not your job to make your wife do hers. Wives: submit to him as the church does to Jesus; Husbands: love her like Christ loves the church. Help each other, encourage each other in your respective parts in the relationship, but the very nature of each of your places in the relationship prevents you from putting forcing the issue on the other.

In most cultures, the husband has authority over his wife. In some relationships wives seem to have the authority. Whoever actually has it: use it to bless the other partner; don't use it to get your way. Period.

The Bottom Line

As we have looked at these texts above, and as we reflect on the nature of authority in the church and in the kingdom, I believe we must come to one conclusion:

The only legitimate purpose of authority in the Kingdom of God is to serve and empower those under that authority.

Any other purpose is from the wrong kingdom.

 

Stepping into the Supernatural: Why it Matters

I've been thinking about a post like this for a while and just wasn't sure how to start, or how. I'm still not sure, but I'm moving forward anyway (a little bit like how it is to step into the supernatural!).

What Makes us Avoid the Supernatural?

I've been in discussion where the word "supernatural" was considered an illegitimate word. For some the word "supernatural" suggests that what God does is not natural to Him. These folks don't deny what is commonly called the miraculous, it just says it's not above God's nature. For others, on the opposite side of the spectrum, the idea of anything supernatural is just plain bunk, deception, or even worse (among some dispensationals and other cessationists): demonic in origin.

For the vast majority of Reformed and Evangelical folks, supernatural is a word we would use to talk about the miraculous in the Bible, and maybe not so much about anything that happens in our day. We're often theologically, or functionally cessationists, though we might concede an exception to the rule here or there.

I'll simply state what I mean by the word "supernatural:" stuff that happens in the observable realm that has a cause in the unseen realm of angels, demons and, of course God. For the purposes of this blog, I'll only be addressing those things God does directly or perhaps at times through His ministering angels.

Now, to answer the question I posed as the heading for this section: I think we prefer to avoid the supernatural, for two main reasons. First, it messes with our scientific, empirical world-view, that discounts anything unobservable as less than real (or at least less real). Second, it suggest that there is something that can directly affect us beyond our direct knowledge or control.

A brilliant example of the first reason for avoiding the supernatural was told to me by a friend. A man was miraculously and instantly healed of a physical problem in a regular worship service in a non-Pentecostal church. The healing was obvious to all who saw it (not just "no more pain"). After the service someone approached the pastor and asked "So, what do you think really happened?" The worldview of the one asking the question had no room for the supernatural, and so sought a natural explanation for what he just saw.

I don't have a particular example to illustrate the second reason we prefer to avoid the supernatural, but I think it's actually the most common. We love to be in control. We prefer to be in control. We often deny, in a way reminiscent of addicts discussing their addiction, that we actually are in complete control of our destinies. It's all up to us. It's the subtext of almost everything Disney has ever produced. In my view, it's also why some Christians always try to find a direct (usually moral) cause for natural disasters. It gives the illusion of control in that, if we don't do that, it won't happen to us.

The Biblical worldview is nothing like either of these objections. Throughout Scripture we meet people who are not in control of their destinies, but seem to be along for the ride. Two shining examples of this are Joseph and Esther, both of whom rise to places of power at just the right time to rescue their people from disaster. The Biblical message in both cases is that God is working, behind the scenes, unseen (the book of Esther doesn't even mention God), and yet clearly God gets done exactly what He intends to do.

A third sort of rejection of the supernatural is almost not worth mentioning, but it's also present: we reject the idea of the supernatural, because we don't like it. We'd prefer an existence without the possibility of demons (e.g.), or a God who can do stuff that affects us without our knowledge or permission. So, we simply assert it doesn't exist. It's the logical equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears and loudly singing "la la la la la" until any counter argument has finished presenting itself. The silliness of such an approach is surpassed only by the number of people who actually make use of it.

I'll discuss one more important reason for our hesitation below.

What if the Supernatural is Supposed to be Normal for Christians?

Actually, the supernatural is normal for Christians (at least orthodox ones)! We believe that we cannot come to faith in Christ, unless the Holy Spirit moves us to faith. On this point both Calvinists and Arminians are in agreement (at least the Arminians I know)! Further, we Calvinists believe that it is also by God's grace that our faith is sustained throughout our life time. That is, God's Spirit is at work in us helping us sustain that faith He first produced in us. We also believe that the Holy Spirit is always at work sanctifying us (making us holier and holier) from spiritual infancy to greater and greater maturity. That is all supernatural!

But what about the possibility of supernatural activity that affects, not merely our spiritual life, but our natural life? Here's where we Reformed types (and many Evangelicals) begin to balk. Does God heal a broken bones in our day? Does He heal people of illnesses? Does He give, what Pentecostals and Charismatics call 'words of knowledge' to people, that is, specific information about people they could not know otherwise (c.f. John 4:17-18)? Does He still give sight to the blind, open deaf ears, raise the dead? I'm not asking if He can, I'm asking if He does.

Documentaries such as The Finger of God, and Holy Ghost are fascinating in that they capture on film actual healing and other miracles. While some could be explained without resorting to anything supernatural, many, many others cannot. If you haven't seen these, I'd recommend them, if not just to challenge your assumptions about how God is at work in our day.

What if the gospel is supposed to march in step with signs and wonders? What if it's not only the 72 who were sent out to Heal the sick who are there and tell them "The kingdom of God is near you." (Luke 10:9); what if we are to do what they did too? What if Jesus' intention in bringing the kingdom was not to bring simply a teaching about it, but to demonstrate the Kingdom's power wherever it went?

One striking thing about the the first epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, is that on the heals of his renowned sermon in Athens (Acts 17:22-31), he went directly to Corinth. He says this about his visit there:

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, emphasis added)  

And later this:

But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. (1Cor. 4:19–20)  

Rereading the events at the Areopagus (sometimes called "Mars Hill") in Athens in Acts 17, we find two striking things in Luke that seem to take on more meaning given what we find in the above passages. First, we hear Luke introduce the famous speech in Athens by saying of the Athenians and others there that they ...spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas. (Acts 17:21), and follows the message by stating A few men became followers of Paul and believed... (Acts 17:34 - emphasis added: "few" or "some," not "many"). Luke doesn't present Paul's sermon at the Areaopagus as the roaring success most of us have attributed to this wonderfully contextualized sermon.


One More Objection to Expecting the Supernatural in the Christian Life:

This objection is so insidious, it can't be dismissed: I know lots of Christians who have never seen a miracle, a healing, a deliverance, a word of knowledge, or anything like that. Are you saying they aren't Christians, or that their faith is deficient in some way?

There are actually three objections in the above, and I hope I can deal with them honestly and in a way that doesn't look like I'm setting up a straw dog.

The first part of the objection "have never seen" is really an appeal to experience, right? Many, many genuine Christians have never experienced a miracle, either for themselves or witnessed it first hand. I know this is true. It was true of me for a long time after I became a Christian. Here's the insurmountable problem with that argument: experience can't dictate theology. That is a lack of experiencing something cannot be the grounds for a theology against others experiencing that sort of thing. While experience can't give us a theology of the supernatural happening today (which some do experience), neither can a lack of such experiences give us a theology that denies that these things can happen. If we are going to either deny or affirm theologically that the supernatural occurs in our day, we need something beyond someone experiencing it, and another not experiencing it.

Would the experience of some Christians with the supernatural imply that Christians who don't have such an experience mean they are not Christians? Let me be blunt: No. We are not Christians by what we do, or by what we fail to do. We are Christians by grace, through faith. But neither does the lack of such an experience by some Christians mean that they ought not have them, nor that they are not important.

The third objection is more subtle, but can't be avoided. It seeks to dismiss the dissonance between some Christians experiencing supernatural things and others not, as a sort of tacit elitism by those experiencing these things. If one group of believers has something that another set of believers doesn't, is one set better than the other, because it has it? Is one set of believers more Christian?

Before addressing this valid concern, let me first pause and suggest that it's a really bad argument against the supernatural happening today. It doesn't hold any water at all. If the supernatural were a flim-flam job, merely the power of mental suggestion, group hypnosis, or wishful thinking, then what should be addressed are the lies that support the view that the supernatural occurs today, and as the truth is exposed, the elitism will come crashing down with it in humble surrender.

The charge (or fear?) of elitism is a slippery one to defend against. But it is equally slippery to assert. Which group is the one with the problem? Having grown up in a Reformed context, I know what it is to feel like we Reformed folks have something the others just don't have, and we have it in a better way than they all do. If that isn't elitism, what is? Thankfully, I don't see that very much any more. BTW, I've seem a great deal of arrogance and elitism among Charismatics, Pentecostals, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics, and just about any other group of people you might mention (even a few Mennonites, who can be very skilled at hiding it!).

The whole point of this blog, The Reformed Charismatic, is to suggest that the Reformed movement has a lot to learn from Charismatics and Pentecostals. It's also to suggest that Charismatics and Pentecostals have a lot to learn from the Reformed movement. Let me assure my Reformed brothers and sisters that some of the Pentecostals and Charismatics I know are just as nervous about the subject matter of this blog as you are! For many of them the supernatural is also the exception, not the rule.

Let's address the charge of elitism for a moment by contemplating whether a little humility is in order. Suppose the supernatural is supposed to be more "normal" in the Christian life. What if there's something we've been missing all along. If it's from God, why wouldn't we want it?

So, How Does This Work in Real Life?

I'm going to be very honest here: I'm still working this out. I've seen people healed, and others not--and not in the way I would have prioritized the healings, if I were God! I've seen weirdness go off on inscrutable tangents, and sincere people minister in the power of God in loving ways with damaging results (which, by God's grace was dealt with later). I've also seen lives so completely transformed that it was difficult to recognize (physically!) the new person from the old. I've prayed with people whose bones were broken, confirmed by X-Ray and healed (also confirmed by X-Ray). I've prayed with a woman who could hardly walk with a walker, until she walked the aisle to the front of the room (over 100 feet). I've spoken words of knowledge that were 'right on,' and prophetic words that turned out just as I'd spoken them. It's been confusing, and glorious, and sometimes a complete failure. I'd love to have a clear answer to the above question!

I guess I'm learning. One of the most important lessons I'm learning is that learning to minister in the supernatural, at least for me, is a process. It has included failure followed by breakthrough. I've also learned that there is no 'formula' to make it work when I want to. Thirdly, following God's prompting (and distinguishing them from my own urges), is another key in moving in the supernatural more consistently. The moment I think "I've got it" and try to move on my own, outside of conscious dependence on God, I fall flat. On the other time, even when I am aware of God's prompting (as best as I can discern them), and am consciously dependent on Him, still things don't always happen as I wish or expect.

Here's one conclusion I'm coming to: if the supernatural is real--if God really is moving in supernatural ways in our day--I want to be a part of what God is doing. And if what Paul says in 1Corinthians 2:1-5 still applies, then I need to do some work to align my ministry with that Biblical model.