KingdomScribes

All I Ask is 4 U 2 Be Perfect...

2012-01-24T16:33:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

An awkward verse, certainly. Matt 5.48 has left many people stumped. Certainly Jesus couldn't really be telling us that in order to enter eventually into the Kingdom of Heaven, we have to be perfect…

And not only perfect, but as perfect as is our Father in Heaven…

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Since no one can be perfect, as perfect as God Himself, obviously the verse must mean something else. Probably Jesus is just using hyperbole [exaggeration for literary purpose] to make a point. Jewish people in His day used hyperbole a lot. That would mean that to understand Jesus, we'd "un-exaggerate" these words into something like, "Try really hard to be exceptionally good." Or maybe Jesus was using the word "perfect" to mean "very, very mature" — since after all, the Pharisees were very, very mature. Then another possibility is that Jesus was using "compression" [another literary device] where the speaker "compresses the time-scale" so that he's talking about the future Kingdom of Heaven and the perfection we'll eventually experience and only sounds like He's talking about now...

But is it safe to read a Scripture, especially one seemingly as simple and clear as this one, and spin its interpretation so that it means something other than what it says?

What if Jesus actually meant what He said? What if He actually meant that if you or I am not as perfect as God Himself, we'll never be allowed into Heaven?

Let's consider another interpretation of this verse. Let's take it at face value. We'll look at it — just as it stands — and see if it makes sense. Here's a straightforward interpretation:

"Since no one (anywhere, anytime) is perfect, it's impossible for any human being in the history of the earth to be allowed entry into the Kingdom of Heaven."

How's that for straight-from-the-shoulder honesty? Jesus was essentially telling every one of His listeners that getting into Heaven was flat impossible. No one could ever do it. Impossible.

His disciples got His drift, especially since Jesus repeated this idea in other places, other teachings. Jesus really was saying that it was impossible for anyone to get into Heaven. He said it again when the rich, young ruler turned away from Jesus. They were stunned. They gasped and almost fell down in shock and cried out to Jesus, "Then it's impossible for anyone to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven!" And Jesus agreed. Patted them on their backs and said, "You got it."

But then He added this: "What is impossible for man, is possible for God."

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

Ollie, Ollie Oxen Free!

2011-10-08T19:37:00.000-07:00

Image by a_sorense via FlickrOur local Redbud Theater once put on a performance that dealt with aging. I don’t remember the name of the play, but the story is unforgettable. It’s set in an old folks’ home. A new lodger arrives, and turns the retirement home upside down with his young ideas.

His manner and voice is young and filled with life. He wants to still enjoy life despite his grey hair. Other residents of the home are angered, set in their aged roles. Several consider the new lodger disrespectful of their advanced years.

Outcome of it all is that most of the old folks join in with the new lodger and wind up magically transported back into childhood. In the television version of the story, it ends with one irritated old codger listening through the window as evening falls, hearing the sounds of children racing to “kick-the-can”, their high, pre-adolescent shouts echoing in the streets, “Ollie, ollie oxen free!”

Ollie, ollie oxen free?

Most people don’t understand how wonderfully appropriate that child’s call is to the old folks in the rest home. How could they, since very few people even realize what the words mean. Children have been shouting, “Ollie, ollie oxen free” for centuries. Generation after generation of children have learned it from other children, not caring in the least what it means.

Centuries back, a German version of the cry entered into English, an English so old that people still used the plural “ye”. The German cry went like this: “Alle Alle auch sind frei.” It means, “All! All! (You) are also free!” and served as the call to all the children still in hiding that that round of the game had ended and they could all come out of hiding.

In England, the phrase went like this: "All ye, all ye, outs in free". In kick-the-can, everyone but whoever is It hides. The kid who’s It tries to guard the Can, while children in hiding try to run to it when it’s unguarded and kick it without being tagged first.

Get this picture: A dozen children playing; all but one in hiding; that one is It and stands near the Can, protecting it; one kid runs out of hiding but is tagged before he can kick the Can; then Suzi runs as quietly as she can, sneaks up behind the kid who’s It, kicks the Can and screams out, “All ye, all ye, outs in free!”

The ones who were still hiding – behind garbage cans, under bushes – knew that the game was over when the call went out, "Ollie Ollie oxen free!" All the children who are “outs” – still in hiding – are free to come out of their hiding places. Sometimes even, children called out this “freedom call” because it was suppertime and they needed to go home and eat.

OK. So “Ollie, ollie oxen free!” actually means “All ye, all ye, outs in free!” So what?

Remember the old folks’ home? The new lodger had come to “free” them from the prison of their own minds! It’s like the saying, “You’re only as old as you think you are.” He’d come to say that grey hairs lie, and life can be lived to the fullest, right to the very end. He’d come to “kick-the-can” of old-agedness, and “free” the residents to enjoy life again.

Nice story. That’s why it’s so appropriate for the children’s cry to be used to end that particular story.

Recently, I heard this children’s cry again. On a CD – filled with contemporary, Christian worship – one of the singers started crying out, “All ye, all ye, come in free!”

It seemed disruptive. What does a child’s game have to do with spiritual worship?

So I listened more carefully to the words of that song. It’s a song about freedom. Spiritual freedom. It’s a song written about all the people who live “in hiding”. All the people who have been wounded by others and are in hiding. They’ve been rejected by others and live in hiding – vulnerable to no one and exposing nothing to anyone for fear of being hurt yet again.

There’s a problem with raising up thick, strong walls of protection. After walling out the people who might hurt you, you discover you’ve walled yourself in to a lonely place. Back in the sixties, Simon and Garfunkle wrote about this loneliness, saying, “I am a rock, I am an island… and a rock feels no pain…”

In the first sermon Jesus preached in His home town of Nazareth, He explained that His Heavenly Father had sent Him to earth as a human being to do a job. He had been chosen “to give good news to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the broken-hearted; to let the prisoners go free, heal the blind, and set the oppressed free from their chains – and to proclaim that this is the Year of the release of God’s Pleasure into human life!” (Luke 4.18-19)

The girl on the worship CD knew that God’s heart breaks to see people who are still broken and shattered by life. Jesus came so that we could have Life with a capital “L” – an abundant life, not mere “survival”.

When Jesus chose to die on the Cross, He offered to cleanse every person from sin and guilt. He’s “washed us” from the guilt of all our sins. Better yet, He’s broken the power of Darkness from our lives.

We don’t need to “hide” in life anymore. We can “come out”. Jesus has “kicked-the-can” of our guilt and shame, He has ended the darkly demonic game that Satan loves to play; He has delivered us from our enemies and it’s finally “safe” to come out of “hiding”.

Game’s over. It’s safe to come out. It’s time for supper, so, “All ye, all ye, ‘outs’ in free!”

God Offers Us Rest — But Where is It?

2011-07-12T19:19:00.000-07:00

Image by alandberning via FlickrA recent blog post [SoulLibertyFaith.com] entitled "How the Gospel Divides", gives a refreshing perspective on the "the Word of God" (sharp, two-edged sword…) in Hebrews 4.12 as well as some thoughts on our "entering into God's rest".

In my response to this blog post, I focused on a couple of crucial, spiritual concepts. I've always prized the "contradictions of Scripture", and there's a doozy in Heb 4.11 when it says, "Let us labor to enter into that rest..." This means that the ONLY "work" we're supposed to be striving for is to rest! (Here's a parallel: if I have a Mini-Mart to run and hire a person, I might say, "I won't hire you unless you're going to work very hard — to do nothing but rest…" Truth to tell, there's a lot of people today who already know how to "rest on the job" in the physical, but not in the spirit!)

The blog post pointed out that the person who lives in God's Rest will be very productive (another "contradiction"!) But what, exactly, will be "produced"? What is "produced" in the life of a Christian at rest in God are the "works" God already "finished from the foundation of the world." [Heb 4.3] In resting from our own, carnal efforts, God's "finished works" can then be manifested through our daily lives. (In Gal 2, Paul says it like this: "I live, but it's not me living, but Christ living in me.") These "manifested works" are those that James points to in his letter — the "works of compassion" coming from the Love of Jesus for those around us.

A couple of observations about the "two-edged sword" which "divides": Out of the 45 times "word of God" [ton logon tou theou] is used in the NT, the majority of its uses don't refer to the written (old testament) Scriptures — mostly it refers to the current preaching (proclamation) of God's Word... And "God's Word" means more than merely the written OT Scriptures since what Jesus preached and taught was referred to as "the word of God", and obviously He wasn't simply quoting Scriptures to the crowds.

So when it says, in Heb 4.12 that "the word of God is quicker", there's no basis for saying it's just referring to today's canon of written Scriptures — especially since the NT canon of Scripture didn't even exist at that time! This removes the ground on which so many self-righteous people use the Bible to judge others ("slice & dice"…) The "word of God" referred to here is the God's Living Word; it is A Living Thing emanating from God — not merely a printed book whose meaning can be twisted according to our biases and judgments.

And the other thing — about that "dividing" — I so wish people would read the text instead of just listening to preachers telling them "what it means". The Scriptures mean what THEY say, not what the preacher SAYS they say. This "word of God" ("quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword") isn't dividing "believers" from "unbelievers" or "the just" from the "unjust" or the "faithful" from the "slackers" — it's dividing "soul and spirit" from "joints and marrow"... The context of this chapter on "rest" is that we're to cease from our fleshly works and instead, from a place of spiritual rest, manifest God's spiritual works. The "division" is between "flesh" and "Spirit" ("soul and spirit" x "joints and marrow") and the author of Hebrews is simply telling us HOW TO REMAIN IN GOD'S REST.

Applying this: how can we tell when what we're doing is mere fleshly labor (and ultimately worthless) OR that what we're doing is manifesting the works of God from a place of rest? How can we possibly discern the difference? We can know this by trusting the Living (and Active) Word of God to show to us the difference between our merely human works and His works in and through us.

Example: I'm (say, what?) ladling steaming hot chicken soup to the homeless in a tent every Tuesday evening down in Skid Row? Is this a "good work" but still merely coming from my flesh? (That is, am I working to produce something pleasing to God?) Or is serving in the soup-line God's own work (finished from the "foundation of the world") but today manifested through me?

How can I tell the difference?

LET GOD TELL ME. His Spirit is a Discerner, dividing between carnal flesh or His Spirit IN ME. In other words, the only "division" going on in this verse isn't between "these" people and "those" people — but it's a work of discernment carried on by God within ME. The verse is to be applied WITHIN me, not amongst other people around me.

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

Is Hell Now Welcoming Usama bin Laden?

2011-05-04T12:11:00.000-07:00

News of the death of Osama bin Laden fueled celebrations in streets across the US. This isn't hard to understand. For many Americans, the memory of watching two airliners flying directly into the Twin Towers on that Tuesday morning is surreal and unforgettably horrifying. The sadness at losing 3,000 of our citizens in one act of terror was only slightly relieved by the miracle that on a normal day, it easily could have been tens of thousands more.

It's no wonder that the architect and creator of the fanatical organization which accomplished this monstrous act of hellish "holy war", Osama bin Laden, should be hated, nor that his death should be celebrated.

There are those who delight in the thought that bin Laden is wiser now than before the bullets took his life. In their notion, rather than passing from this life into one filled with rivers of wine and the eternal, sensuous joys of young, virginal houris, bin Laden instead now faces the Prince of Darkness and the eternally punishing fires of Hell.

Emotionally satisfying as this image appears to so many, this picture of bin Laden being turned over to torment in Satan's hands is supported by custom, but not by Scripture. This "Hell" — with its explicit torments and barb-tailed Dementors in an Underworld ruled by the devil is a fiction taken from fantasies such as Milton's Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno.

If a Christian seriously wants to have some picture of what bin Laden may be experiencing now, that image must be drawn from the simple and clear word of Scripture. Except, when it comes to the issue of the Afterlife (good or bad), the Bible has no simple and clear teaching on it. When one goes through all of Scripture, gathering the many verses pertaining to "Heaven" and "Hell", and then compares them to each other — they paint an inconsistent, even incoherent, picture. There's not a consistent description of Hell amongst the various Bible passages, verses which range from the souls of people who die going into the earth for an eternal sleep to sinners burning in fire to the wicked being cast out into a place of eternal darkness… The images given in the Bible are inconsistent and contradictory. Overall, according to Scripture one can say that there is a sense that an Afterlife of some sort exists, but no specific conclusions can be drawn from the biblical texts made about exactly what Hell is. Or what Osama is experiencing right now.

It's time for Christians — at least, those who are true followers of Jesus Christ — to set aside the demoniacal and horrific fantasies of poets speaking merely from their own, merely human speculations. It's time for Christians instead to have an accurate and godly sense of what's happening to Osama bin Laden now, since he has died. After all, the Scriptures warn us in Proverbs 24, "Do not rejoice when your enemies fall, and do not let your heart be glad when they stumble, or else the LORD will see it and be displeased, and turn away his anger from them."

No — there's only one godly point of view concerning the reality of our seeing Osama bin Laden enter into Eternity; there's only only one perspective that is dependable and in which we can have total confidence. And this "perspective" you might say is in fact a very sound and acceptable conclusion. And it is this: Today, and forever, Osama bin Laden is in God's hands.

If you trust God — that's good enough.

Shalom.

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

The Resurrected Soul...

2011-04-23T03:23:00.000-07:00

Image by ToniVC via Flickr

How can we come to any definite conclusions about what Heaven "looks like" — or Hell, for that matter — when we can't even say what a soul "looks like".

After all: "dust to dust" and all that… Our bodies return (sooner or later) to the soil from which they emerged, and so whatever Heaven looks like, it won't look like a place inhabited by our flesh and blood bodies. Certainly, the Bible speaks of a new sort of body — first seen in Jesus after His Resurrection, a body which the Bible calls, "flesh and bone".

But according to Scripture, we don't really know what that "incorruptible body" looks like. Consider this: after the Resurrection, when others met Jesus, He wasn't immediately recognizable. Even those who were closest to Him — like Mary at the Tomb, falling to His feet in a mental torment at the disappearance of Jesus from the Tomb — didn't know who He was until He spoke. And the disciples on the road to Emmaus as well as even Peter and John, later in their fishing boat on the Sea of Galilee — none of these recognized Him merely by looking at the "flesh and bone" which Jesus "wore".

This new and incorruptible flesh in which Jesus dwelt not only didn't look familiar to those who knew Him prior to His crucifixion, this new body didn't act like the old flesh either. In His new body (incorruptible, eternal) Jesus could apparently pass through solid objects (such as the locked door behind which the disciples cowered in fear.) He could apparently transport from one place to another (Jerusalem to Galilee and back again) as He wished. Was He a spirit, only appearing to be flesh? This possibility is negated by His eating food with His disciples. What mere spirit could eat food or present the evidence of bodily wounds to the disciples for them to touch with their hands?

Not even able to understand what the characteristics of this "incorruptible" flesh are, how can anyone understand what environment this body can inhabit? Does it need "streets of gold"? (After all, the phrase "streets of transparent gold" may not be literal but merely a figure of speech in John's attempt to communicate some unearthly, incomprehensible Reality he glimpsed — perhaps suggesting what a fantastically Wonderful Place this "Heaven" will be…)

And here we're already drifting beyond what the Bible clearly says, beyond what any human has ever truly comprehended — drifting into fantastic speculation about things so far beyond human experience that they are indescribable, at least until such a Day comes that we experience it for ourselves.

What part of Heaven, of the Body Incorruptible, of Streets of (transparent) Gold and of passing through solid walls or over lengthy distances — what part do we understand?

Yet many self-proclaimed men or women of God not only fantasize that they understand such things, they understand them well enough to go to war over them. People claiming to be "followers" of Jesus Christ argue and bicker, accuse and verbally pillor and pummel, pounce, punch and even punish people who don't "believe" in the "Heaven" or "Hell" that they themselves dogmatically promote.

Humility could certainly help in this dispute. A sort of peace and quiet could reign if various religious combatants considered that in their bickering over Eternity and Heaven and Hell, the Wrath of God and the Love of God — that in every, discrete element of the argument, no one truly comprehends anything.

Not even the simplest question like what does a soul look like now — when it's still "dwelling" within flesh and blood… Much less what it will look like in eternity!

Emil & Shell

www.KingdomScribes.net

God is Usually NOT Subtle...

2011-02-07T17:24:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

Christians make too much of Elijah's "cave experience" in which God spoke to him. The story tells us that as Elijah waited on a desert mountain, there were huge manifestations of power — wind, earthquake and fire — but God was not "in" these. Then, in the quietness that followed, Elijah heard God speak as "a still small voice".

Drawing from this one, famous incident, when Christians refer to "hearing" something from God in respect to His leading us in life-choices, Elijah's "still small voice" is often cited as an example that if we're not listening very, very carefully, God might speak and we might not even notice.

Well, it isn't usually that way with me. In my personal experience, when God speaks, He uses a 2x4 to get my attention. In fact, when you begin to list things we know about God, He's not usually very subtle about much of anything.

How about Ps 19? The psalmist tells us:

The heavens declare the glory of God;

The skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Day after day they pour forth speech;

Night after night they display knowledge.

There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.

Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.

Basically, when God "speaks" everybody listens.

(I've also considered it very unsubtle of God that He created over 150,000 different species of beetles and 100,000+ species of flies. In every size, color and toxicity! That's extravagant but it's not "subtle"! Especially the flies…)

Recently, God needed to get my attention. He wasn't subtle. For two or three days I carried a sense of dread — a free-floating anxiety that I couldn't pin down. I wondered if I was depressed or feeling condemned (both unusual emotions for me.) At the same time, I'd also "fallen into" a heated online discussion with a fellow "student" of spiritual things, focused on whether or not a Christian can be a sinner. (My usual response is, "Only if that's what they want…" Helpful, right?)

As we "debated" the issue, I focused especially on one problem: I can't see in the Word where the New Creature — that "New Person" who is created supernaturally when a person trusts in Jesus Christ — is able to be "one with Christ" and yet still "be a sinner". As I struggled to focus on this in the discussion, I refused to accept that the Christian consists of "two people" in "one body": the Old Man and the New Man. To me, when Paul explains that we have "died" with/in Christ, it's the Old Man that's done the dying. In fact, when Paul says in Rom 6 that we've been crucified with Christ, buried with Christ and resurrected with Christ, he mentions the "buried" part to emphasize that that's where we left the Old Self. Now (beyond the grave), the only "me" is the new self — the offspring or "seed of God", as John the Beloved puts it.

Back to the free-floating anxiety: I vaguely sensed that whatever had me upset somehow connected to this dialogue. Still, ignoring that sense in my typical dullard way, I tried to "lift" my sense of disquiet through other means. I fixed myself a nice breakfast — which didn't work. I accomplished a few tasks around the house from my honeydew list — with no effect (on my feelings, anyway. I'm sure I'll gain points with my "Honey" though!)

Finally, I clicked on the TV and searched for a recorded show, found an old "Smallville", and settled back to enjoy the old Superboy vs. Lex Luther struggle (which is, of course, the most ancient of conflicts in human history…)

In this episode, bad boy Lex is in the wrong place at the wrong time when a lab experiment with "Mineral Rock" (green kryptonite) explodes close to where he stood. He stood up, helped rush an employee to the hospital, but never noticed that when he left the lab, he left behind another "Lex Luther" slowly standing to his feet. This "Lex", we soon discovered, was the "bad" Lex — the explosion having separated Lex into two pieces: the Good Lex and the Bad Lex...

I hit the Pause button and groaned… "Oh, come on, God! Can you be any more blatant than this?" Here I am, trying to escape from the discussion of duality in the lives of Believers, and my "escape" is to watch a show which zeros in on the duality of Lex's natures? (Sheesh! That's the 2x4 I mentioned above… When God wants to get someone's attention, He's very adept and not easily ignored.) After all — how many episodes of Smallville focused on the dualistic natures of a person — good vs. bad? Exactly one. The one I "happened" to have recorded on my DVR. (!!!)

Looking at the two onscreen Lexes, I hardly got a chance to like, "ask" God what's His point because His Declaration flooded in, "There is no dualism in a Believer's life — there's only one self."

There aren't 'two Believers' somehow "inside" vying for each other's submission — one on each shoulder. Interesting as that old Eskimo story might be, there aren't "two dogs in your heart — one black, one white — and the one you feed is the one who wins." No. A Believer — a person who's truly "born again" — is only one self.

Not that there aren't "two persons" in a Believer's life chronologically. Before Christ, there was the "Old Man" and after trusting in Jesus there's the "New Man". Even though a Believer's behavior may suggest that there are "two persons battling inside", there's only one — the spiritual self — and the only "battle" is whether we choose to walk in the flesh (in which sin dwells) or walk in the Spirit. [à la, Rom 8]

Before becoming a new self in Christ, we were helplessly slaves to sin and had no choice but to follow its commands. But after being made one with Jesus (death, burial & resurrection), we're no longer the slaves of sin but are masters over our flesh. Freed from the malevolent Ruler of Darkness, we're now free to obey Jesus' lead in righteous living.

But sometimes we still choose to let sin manifest itself through our flesh. Are we then "sinners'? Here's where many Christians — more comfortable with the Law than with grace — mindlessly affirm that, yes, if we do what's wrong we're still sinners.

The apostle Paul's enemies accused him of teaching a form of antinomianism — that once freed from the Law, a Believer cannot sin and is therefore free to sin without recognizing any moral responsibility for his unrighteousness. Paul rejected that idea, and his stance was simple: once freed from the Law, a Believer can't "build again" the Law that made us sinners; but we're not free to sin — we're free to not sin.

When we choose to let sin rule in our flesh, it doesn't make us sinners again. One of Paul's most serious examples of "heinous sin" was the brother in Corinth living in incest with his dad's wife. Paul didn't say to throw the bum out as punishment. He didn't say throw the bum out because he wasn't really a "saint". He said throw the bum out so that by allowing Satan to destroy the man's flesh, his "spirit may be saved in the Day of the Lord Jesus." Even in this instance of "serious sin", Paul didn't question whether or not the man would eventually "die in the Lord"; the destruction of the flesh freed the man's spirit at Jesus' Second Coming.

When we choose to walk in the flesh, it isn't simply that we're "sinners" again. That's been successfully dealt with. But it does mean that whatever God wanted to accomplish through us won't happen. At the end of the earthly life, every saint faces a peculiar "fire" which "tests" the fruit of their lives. Everything that that saint accomplished in life that was the outworking of Christ within, will be imperishable like gold, silver or precious stones. But everything that was the product of the flesh will be consumed just like fire turning wood, hay and stubble into ash.

Once (in Christ) we've died to the Law and are no longer slaves to sin, we no longer are "sinners" because of our life-style choices. But we are ultimately going to face rewards — and the loss of rewards — when we see Christ. And for those people who think, "That's O.K. That's going to be a long way in the future" should consider one other "option": drawing from 1Jn, if a person is somehow quite satisfied to let sin manifest itself through his flesh — perhaps that person has deceived himself and is not even in Christ at all. This is Jesus' warning in Mt 8 about the people who'll stand in front of Him on the Last Day, insisting they've done so many miraculous works in Jesus' Name, only to be rejected by Jesus Who says, "Depart from Me, workers of iniquity — I never knew you."

Persistent sin? Possible sign that you've deceived yourself into thinking you're right with God but aren't. And even if you are, your life here in this earth will simply never fulfill the joy and satisfaction of a life well lived — or (as Paul put it) your life will never be a "race well run".

Saint or sinner? Since you cannot be both, which are you?

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

Who Defines “Apostolic Ministry” for Today?

2011-01-17T02:07:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

Back in the 60’s and early 70’s, the Charismatic Renewal swept through mainstream churches across the US, Europe and then the world. Because the majority of its participants claimed to be “baptized in the Holy Spirit” and spoke in tongues, many labeled this movement “Pentecostal” and tried to lump it in with the older, mainline Pentecostal denominations such as the Assembly of God and the United Pentecostal Church, amongst others.

Believers who had been members of mainline denomination such as Methodist or Baptist and were baptized in the Holy Spirit, were content to meet together and explore this new Move of the Holy Spirit as spiritual novices. Groups such as the FGBMFI (Full Gospel Businessmen Fellowship International) carefully chose to not align themselves with any denomination -- Pentecostal or otherwise. This led to a peculiar conflict. An apparent jealousy seemed to rise up in those Christians who had been faithful members of traditional Pentecostal groups. Whenever groups of Charismatic Believers met together, those with long histories in old-line Pentecostal groups often pushed to the forefront, offering themselves as “experts” on “the Pentecostal experience”.

Back in 1970, as a high school youth, I personally experienced some of this “ownership mentality” from old-line Pentecostals. In several public meetings and Charismatic conferences, desiring this “new-to-me” spiritual reality, I “went forward” several times hoping to be “baptized in the Spirit” with “speaking in tongues”. As a life-long Baptist, the entire, “Pentecostal experience” had previously been written off as “Satanic”, but the fruit of transformed lives and the inability for anti-Pentecostals to refute these experiences from the Bible left me open to ask God for “more”.

At these meetings, when I went forward, in every instance there were old-line Pentecostals poised to “minister the Baptism” to me. They were very prominent since -- after all -- they were the “experts”. Each instance seemed similar even though the locale and the people involved were always different. I would be instructed to kneel down and several elderly people, both men and women, would press in around me, touching my head and my shoulders as they prayed loudly for various things: “God! Send Your FIRE on this young man!”, “Holy Spirit -- descend upon this vessel!”, “Be FILLED with the Holy Ghost!”

The last time I subjected myself to these odd -- though, in their denominations, time honored -- methods, one old woman who “ministered” to me seemed so determined that she kept hitting me, pounding me on my head and shoulders as she hollered out her petitions to God. In front of me, an old man (with objectionable breath) had knelt to shout into my face, “SAY ‘SHANDALAH!’ SAY ‘SHANDALAH!’” to which, in hopes he’d back off, I complied to no avail.

All of the traditional Pentecostals I encountered in my high school year believed that no one -- flat out, NO ONE -- who did not speak in tongues could be baptized in the Holy Ghost. I never spoke in tongues at those sessions, ergo I was not “Spirit Baptized”. Actually, I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit (without tongues) in the course of a teen Bible study in Tracy, California.

During this group study, I came across the gospel passage in which Jesus affirmed the fundamental Goodness of God, saying, “If even earthly fathers who are sinners know how to give good gifts to their children, how much more so will your Father in Heaven give the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who ask.” I looked the verses over, realized they said nothing about “tongues” or “tarrying for the Spirit” or "deserving" the Father’s gift. It just said that God was a gracious Father who’d give me the gift of the Holy Spirit if I asked. So I asked and nothing whatsoever happened. No tongues. No great feelings. No brilliant light or other sensation. But I considered that since I’d read the Scripture passage clearly and accurately, that God must have given me the Gift of the Holy Spirit simply because the Word said that’s what He’d do. And as I drove home that night, singing in the car as was typical with me, I suddenly realized I’d begun singing in words and sounds that were not English. Still, by the way, no sensations!

Still, after that experience I watched again and again as old-line Pentecostals tried to push themselves into places of spiritual authority over the Charismatic movement. And repeatedly, I saw those who were novice “Pentecostals” simply ignored the Pentecostal traditionalists. It seemed reasonable to me, back then, to consider traditional Pentecostals to offer very little of value to this new Move of the Spirit. In a word, if they already “had the goods”, the Charismatic movement wouldn’t have needed to happen.

The traditionalists neither understood the Charismatic movement nor did they accept it as different from their religious experiences of the past. But subtly apart from traditional Pentecostalism, the Charismatic Renewal continued to sweep across towns, regions and nations for over a decade before it itself slowed down, its adherents beginning to “camp” on their own past experiences -- and a fresh Move of the Holy Spirit rose up, passing them by as they had passed by the old-line Pentecostals.

All this contemporary history to make one point: many people throughout the Body of Christ are sensing that (in addition to pastors, teachers and evangelists) God is raising up the ministries of apostles and prophets. How will we know who us an “apostle” or “prophet”? How will we determine what “apostolic” or “prophetic” actually consists of?

The basic answer is (of course) that we have to allow God to lead us in understanding these new ministries. But one serious caution is that people in the past who have had “apostles” or “prophets” are NOT the ones needed to define these ministries for us today. Just as the old-line Pentecostals (arrogantly) attempted to define the course (and theologies) of the Charismatic Renewal, so also people today, based on formulas from the past, will continue to define these ministries for the Body of Christ today.

For this move of God to come to true fruition, the people of God must do one thing and do it passionately. And that is, setting aside any familiar or traditional definitions (and expectations), we must know God more, patiently wait on Him and allow Jesus Christ to raise up and “define” apostolic and prophetic ministries in the world today.

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

Building the Church According to WHAT Pattern?

2010-11-03T14:55:00.003-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

Jesus said, "I'll build My Church, and even the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." For years, people have speculated about what this "Church" looks like -- what is its structure, its organization. And for years, people have been speculating about what pattern should be followed in the building up of the Church.

Many preachers look to the Old Testament for an appropriate example: Moses. After all, he built the Tabernacle "according to the pattern" God showed to him. So, these preachers reason, if we can understand how Moses did it, then it’ll show us how we can do it.

Countless sermons have been delivered and blogs written about "God's pattern" for the Church. Typically they go like this: "God wants us to build the Church according to the pattern of the early Church in Acts" or, "God wants us to build the Church according to the pattern of the local churches that the Apostle Paul planted" and especially, "God wants us to build the Church apostolically."

These ideas are wrong. For example:

1) God doesn't want us to "build the Church according to the model in Acts" because there is no model given in Acts.

2) He doesn't want us to "build the church according to Paul's patterns" because Paul didn't give us a "church-building" pattern.

3) God doesn't want us to "build the Church apostolically" because there is no clear definition in the New Testament of an "apostolic pattern", and (in fact) there's not even a clear definition of an apostle.

4) And God doesn't want us looking at "early church models" because no New Testament church ever became mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

All of these are wrong because they all assume that God wants us to "build the Church". Truth is, we're not the "builders" of the Church. Jesus said, "I will build My Church..."

Eph 4 clarifies this process: There is no “pattern”, no master "plan" by which the saints "build the Church". No — there is a Head (Who is Christ) Who both gifts and guides every part of its Body in the building up of itself in Love.

What's the conclusion here? Instead of looking for some divine "master plan" according to which we can "build the Church", we need to relate to the Head and to each other in such a way that every one of us (in Christ) can do our part in building each other up — until we attain the full measure of the stature of the Man, Christ, in this earth.

Let's put it this way: There's a tremendous difference in building a house or building a tree. The house requires plans, contractors, carpenters and stonemasons to build as well as an architect to watch over the project. A tree requires the planting of a seed. You throw the seed into the ground, water it and watch it grow.

So, back to "according to the pattern": The "pattern" that must be followed in "building the Church" is not organizational, because the Church is not an organization -- it is an organism. We don't look to the book of Acts to try and discern some organizational pattern for today's Church. We don't look to Paul, the apostle, to try and discern some organizational pattern for today's Church. We don't even look to modern day apostles to try and discern some organizational pattern for today's Church. Any pattern — be it "congregational", "presbyterian", "papal", "episcopal", "evangelical", "separatistic", "hierarchical", "flat", "representative" — is not the "Pattern" by which we are to "build the Church".

No! What modern day apostles do is point every member of the Body of Christ to its Head -- and the Head directs each member of the Body into doing his or her part in the building up of the Body as He so desires. (Not according to the dreams and desires of mere human leaders.)

Or you might say, modern day apostles point every saint to Jesus Christ and tell them, “Get to know Him, and everything you do, build on Him – the Church’s only Foundation – works of silver and gold, not wood, hay or stubble.

Know Jesus, and let Him be Himself through you.

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

The Correlation Between True Apostleship and NY Bologna

2010-10-18T21:24:00.000-07:00

Image via WikipediaSORT AND SWEET: I've just read a few blogs on "true apostleship" and have two more waiting on my tabs. They're disappointing. Putting it mildly. Actually, they're despicable.

What's "true" about these articles on "true apostleship"? They all open up with vaguely similar ideas: Only Paul's enemies ever denied he was an apostle; true apostles face persecution; to be an apostle you had to have "seen" Jesus; apostles declared the Word of God to us in the New Testament; etc.

All the above are wrong. Paul never expected enemies OR acquaintances to recognize him as an apostle -- only those whom he had brought into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ; Paul never saw Jesus -- only in a vision (since Jesus was already ascended to the Right Hand of God) but he certainly never "accompanied" Jesus as many consider required of apostles (incorrectly); if true apostles face persecution, so does anyone who is a true follower of Jesus Christ -- guaranteed by Jesus Himself; not all the New Testament was written by apostles and not all apostles wrote any of the New testament -- and when you add up those who did and didn't, there's just no real connection between written Revelation and apostolic ministry (then OR now.)

Searching for people who are writing on apostolic ministries in the Church today is frustrating. Blog after blog (and worse, "scholastic article" after "scholastic article") overwhelmingly seem satisfied with simply throwing out a verse here or there and then laying out simple, personal speculation on "apostolic ministry" as if it were God's Own Truth.

Here's a novel suggestion: How about looking carefully at the Bible to see what God's Word actually does say (and doesn't say!) about apostles, their ministries, their commissions and their companies? When the Scriptures are examined, there is actually very little said about the nature and function of apostles -- but what is said is important.

Here's a link to a white paper we put out recently that explores what the Bible does and does not say about apostolic ministries, and how that applies to the Church today. Church traditions aren't considered relevant in this paper -- only what the Bible says. Church leaders' opinions or denominational biases aren't considered in this paper -- only what the Bible says.

Isn't it likely that any continuing dialogues concerning apostolic ministries for today's world will have a better chance of having a serious impact on the Church, if everyone at least starts from first base -- being willing and able to observe what the Bible says about apostles, as opposed to mere, human opinion?

You can download the white paper for free: Apostolic Ministries in the 21st Century.

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

BTW -- If you read the white paper, please feel free to comment on it. If you do, we'll see your comments are published. If you just want to throw out more personal speculation (unfounded on the Word), if it's really good we'll publish it. es

Show Me a Penny & I'll Show You the Kingdom of God

2010-08-14T14:08:00.000-07:00

Roman denarius (Ikarus Kuwait)When the chief priests and scribes realized that Jesus taught the people to question their authority (uncovering their spiritual arrogance towards God and man) these "spiritual leaders" tried to trap Jesus into making heretical statements. With such a statement, they could rig a trial against Him before the Court of the Sanhedrin.

The first trap Luke records in his gospel in chapter 20 is when these religious leaders ask Jesus, "Is it according to our Law for the Jews to have to pay taxes to the Roman Emperor?" (They figured if Jesus said "Yes", the crowds would turn against Him and if He said "No" they could turn Him over to the Roman authorities for inciting the Jews to rebel against Rome.)

Jesus asked, "Can anyone show a denarius to Me?" (All over the Roman empire, this coin served as the most common means of payment for goods. It equaled about a day's wage for a common laborer.)

Someone brought the coin out so everyone could view it. Jesus pointed to it and asked, "Whose portrait and inscription are on it?" and they had to answer, "Caesar." Jesus said, "Give to Caesar whatever belongs to him, and give to God whatever belongs to Him."

He'd not only leaped over the religious leaders' trap -- He'd actually leaped from the carnal into the spiritual; from the kingdoms of men into the Kingdom of God.

They must have felt a lot like an unskilled person who's playing against a checkers' champion. A novice doesn't even realize that the master is manipulating the placement of checkers on the board -- until (unexpectedly) the master moves his checker, jumps eight strategically placed checkers of his opponent and lands on the final row, requiring that his piece be "kinged". You can't possibly imagine how shocked it leaves a person feeling (but I certainly can, since my dad did this to me numerous times. It's awful.)

It had to be awful for the scribes and chief priests that day as the crowds waited to assess their response. Now, instead of the clean victory they'd smugly imagined, they were faced with the terrible reality that they owed something both on the human level (to Caesar) and on the spiritual level (to God.)

To many Bible readers, this passage simply shows how much "smarter" Jesus had to be than His "opponents". But His being "smart" is hardly skimming the surface of this incident reported by Luke. The true Challenge of Jesus' response should confront every person today just as the day He issued it 2,000 years ago.

Leaving aside the question as to whether or not you're paying your taxes to the government, more importantly, are you giving to God what belongs to Him?

"But," you ask, "what exactly belongs to Him? What do we have that is actually His?

And the answer, my friend, is blowing in the Wind of God's Spirit -- do you hear it? Can you hear what He says to you in this very Moment when you ask Him what it is that you have that actually belongs to Him?

Is He saying, "Give me tithes and offerings"? Is He saying, "Give me the deed to your properties"? Is He saying, "Give Me your first-born son"?

Aren't these ridiculous suggestions? In fact, isn't God saying, "Give me you. Give me your heart, your soul and your mind"? Once you've given Him these, is there anything left of you that you haven't given to Him? "Give unto Caesar what belongs to him, and give unto God what belongs to Him."

Oh! And our love -- our love belongs to Him. And our trust; it belongs to Him as well. And gratitude...

God is not far from any person reading this blog. How exactly does He want you? He wants your trust. He wants you to allow Him to enliven your spirit, to make a connection -- a union -- between you and Him. He wants you to have total confidence in Jesus, that when He chose to die on the Cross to pay the "penalty" for humanity's Sin, He paid the penalty for your sin as well. And if you hear that, and trust that -- God will make you One with Himself. You'll forever be Alive in Jesus and Jesus Alive in you.
You will have "rendered unto God that which belongs to Him".

Our complete and simple Trust.

Emil & Shell Swift

Jesus - Are You Sure He's "Alive & Well"?

2010-07-25T20:15:00.000-07:00

Satan Sowing Seeds, by Felicien Rops

IN the 70's America felt the shock of the run-away best-seller, Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth. The question as to whether the Devil existed disappeared under the flood of excitement of those who started seeing him under every bed -- not to speak of those who began seeing him in every Hollywood blockbuster horror flick.

But recently theological critic and spiritual gadfly, Leonard Sweet, wrote his book, Nudge. Simply put, he felt that many people were so "close" to knowing God that all they need is a bit of a "nudge" to “awaken each other to the God who is already there”.

He begins with a couple of axioms -- the first of which is even more revolutionary than the "Satan is alive and well" premise. Sweet insists that Jesus is alive and active in the world today.

You might think this deserves a "duh" response from Christians all over the world. But it actually deserves a more cautious response. Here's an example: An older, church-going woman, struggling with an untrustworthy automobile, complained to me that no one cared about her ongoing difficulties in getting to her housecleaning jobs. Often she'd get in the car but twouldn't start. In the remote mountain area in which we lived, that could not be easily remedied.

I pointed out a Solution quite close and available to her: ask Jesus to solve her problem. She gave me a dirty look for suggesting something so unrealistic and worthless as that advice. I challenged her, asking if she were willing to talk to Jesus about her problem and then let the solution rest with Him. She agreed, but so sourly I thought I'd better do the asking for her ("with" her!) I said, this: "Jesus -- You see her problem with an undependable car -- she needs a dependable way to and from work. We'll trust You with this one."

End of conversation. Only a week later, I saw her driving a different car -- one that though used obviously ran more dependably. I asked about her car and dismissivly she complained about this and that on the car, but admitted it started and ran very dependably. I asked if the car belonged to her and again she acknowledged it did (through rather an amazing series of events.) Then I asked if she remembered that we'd talked about her car problems a week earlier. She thought about it, seemed unable to bring it to mind. I said, "We ended our conversation by -- together -- asking Jesus to solve your car problems somehow."

I waited. Her face showed and sudden brightness and excitement as she admitted, "That's right! We did pray about it!" Then she looked at the new-to-her car and said, "He took care of it!" She never could have admitted that she didn't trust Jesus to care for her in this world. She could never have admitted that, honestly, in her world, Jesus was not "alive and well". But truth-to-tell, for her, Jesus existed in a useless, uncaring but beautifully crafted stained-glass myth.

The real issue today isn't that Satan is alive and well, but that for those people who ought to have the greatest confidence in a sovereign God, many don't believe that Jesus Himself is alive and well.

And above all else, the most important issue for you is this: on a day-to-day basis, is Jesus "alive and well" in your world?

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

Whoever's in Charge of Your Church Should be Fired!

2010-07-22T20:58:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

There's no Command Structure in the Church that Jesus is building. In your local church or your denomination or other religious organization, there's always a Command Structure. The Buck Stops Somewhere... but that's true in every organization that is merely human. But the Body of Christ is not an organization -- it's an organism. There's no Command Structure in the Body of Christ. Not only can the elder not "command" anyone in the congregation, the Pastor or the Presbyter or the Bishop can't either. In fact, if by your confidence in Jesus, you're in Christ, not even God Himself will "command" you.

A person is not called by God to obey Him but to submit. That's not the same thing. When your friend spins by your house in his new cherry red Charger and throws open the door offering you a ride, is he "commanding" you? Obviously not. Yet when you set foot into that car and settle your posterior in its interior, you're submitting yourself to your friend's driving skills. But whenever in a congregation or workplace your "submission" is reluctant, uneasy or frightened, it isn't submission but subjection.

God calls for your submission, not your subjection. He wants you to "obey" in the sense of your willing and eager cooperation with Him in following the lead of His Spirit. When you've become One with Jesus Christ and He lives in you (and you in Him as well), you find that "obeying" God is simply releasing the Life that empowers you from within. It's not onerous, oppressive, or overpowering. It's "light" and it's filled with Light.

Which is why Jesus said for you to "take up My yoke and become accustomed to My ways, for My yoke is easy and My burden is Light!"

As the Architect and Builder of the Church, Jesus sets the Pattern of "authority" that's to be exercised in the Church. As when two oxen are yoked together, side-by-side, so Jesus exercises His Authority in your life by coming alongside you. Even though He's God, He doesn't demand you enter the yoke with Him -- He invites you to share it with Him. He offers for you to allow Him to come alongside you and show you His ways.

God has given humanity numerous Commands (the law.) But His Commands are only for those who have refused to trust Him and submit their lives to His grace, power and leading. Such people -- having no confidence in God -- are still under His Law. And the Law with its demands is onerous, oppressive, and impossible. But God never intended anyone to live under the Law. The Law is intended to accomplish one thing: to free people from their proud and arrogant attempt to lead "good lives" by themselves -- without coming into union with Jesus Christ.

Which means that -- if in your local church -- you find yourself motivated by fear, by pressure to perform properly, by expectations as to what you "should do" and who you "should be" because "you're a Christian now"... you better leave. THAT "church" is operating under the Law. If you're in a congregation in which you feel affirmed, valued, free to participate or to not participate, impressed by the love of the people and especially the love of the elders in that fellowship -- then bless God and grow there. (And tell your friends about the joy of that fellowship because it springs from people fellowshipping together in the Love of Jesus. That's where all good things come from!)

Even the Elders of a church -- whether they're called that or "Reverend" or "presbyter" or "bishop" or "apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher" -- even the Elders of a congregation must not "command" the rest of the people. Like God Himself and Jesus Who only offers His yoke to those who desire to learn of Him, church leaders lead by example -- not by command. A spiritual mentor offers to you and others an opportunity to come under the influence of their lifestyles of godly power and love.

Now, if a "leader" isn't living a lifestyle like that -- steer clear of his or her influence. In the long run, you'll become like the person you hang with, and if you don't want to "look" like that "elder" in character and action, find another person whose life (in your eyes) reflects that of Jesus. Not religion! Not a Bible-verse quoter or a "doctrinally sound" debater or a Morality Policeman! No -- a "Jesus Reflector". You look at them and what you see is Love.

One last thought: The Body of Christ has one Head (Jesus) and is knitted together as a living, spiritual Organism. But when humans gather together and build a building in which they can gather and organize a Sunday School to teach children and take offerings so they can hand out sandwiches to street people every Tuesday or see that the ministers who give their lives like 24/7 have at least as good a living financially as the people to whom they give Life... all of these activities are spiritually neutral. They're neither "good" nor "bad". Activities such as these don't "prove" a church organization is Reflecting Jesus Christ or has some other, merely human motivation.

Understand this: it doesn't make any difference how people build religious organizations. It makes a difference as to what those organizations do. (Do they perpetuate Jesus or mere religion?) But don't mistake human organizations for the organism that is the Body of Jesus Christ, manifested in this world. All visible, local or international organizations are of human design. Which is O.K. But it does make a difference as to whether or not the leaders of these merely human organizations try to pass them off as "the Church" that Jesus is building (against which the gates of Hell will not prevail.)

A group of people who organize their gathering and activities is neither good nor bad, right nor wrong. If they organize their spiritual Gathering in a home, in lots of homes, in abandoned store-fronts or stone cathedrals -- none of that matters. It matters if they call these organizations The Church and convince themselves and others that whoever runs these human organization are The Voice of God and their instructions are The Will of God.

In a word: freedom. Jesus came to set us free from the Law and from human oppression. He set us free so that we can freely receive Him into our beings and freely live His Life outwardly -- going along with Jesus for the Ride of our Eternal Lives! Since He came, He died and He rose again just so we can be free -- then let that freedom become a Freedom for righteous living and not license for sin.

And having been made free by Jesus -- Stay Free!

Emil & Shell
www.KingdomScribes.net

Boy -- Do I Hate Working with Concrete...

2010-07-12T20:53:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

The job out in the front lawn seemed so easy... shoring up a rock wall beside some moss-covered steps. I’d set a plywood form 6 inches away from the back of a stone wall whose individual rocks were loose, some already fallen out. It seemed simple enough: just fill that space with cement and let it fill in the back of the stones and secure them in solid concrete.

I picked up 5 bags of quick-crete at the building supply. My friend and I mixed each bag in a wheelbarrow and shoveled it into that little 6 inch space. Well -- 6 inches by 4 feet tall by 10 feet long...

Then I got 6 more bags of quick-crete, mixed each one and shoveled them in. And finally we’d filled the space and successfully backed up the loose stones in that garden wall. Proudly, I watched it dry over the next week and finally decided it had to be time to pull the plywood forms away from the fresh and semi-dry concrete wall. Eagerly ready to admire the results, I grabbed the rough edges of the plywood form and pulled it away from the new wall.

Well -- at least I tried. I couldn’t get the form off. I got a hammer to beat it off. Useless. I got a pick-ax to tear it away from the fresh cement wall. No good. I went to find a chain to somehow tie to the plywood and the bumper of my truck and rip the sucker off. Fortunately, I couldn’t find a chain. It would have been a disaster I suppose.

Staring at the plywood I’d used to mold and form the cement wall, I realized that some of our fresh cement had leaked under the board’s edge and crawled a few inches up the outside of the form. I’d actually cemented the plywood form to the new cement wall. Now, even though all I wanted was the wall, I couldn’t escape from the wooden forms I’d used to help shape the wet cement.

It occurred to me, then, that what I faced wasn’t a far cry from what many Believers faced. I’ve seen so many people who’ve been Touched by the Spirit of the Lord who then began to seek out and gather with other Believers who were similarly Touched by God. They gather together -- some in homes, some in borrowed school cafeterias, rented store-fronts and even barns. In joy... they gather and share in worship, prayer, preaching and teaching and caring in love for one another. The Joy flows like Wine. It’s not even a “church” - it’s a Gathering, just like in the New Testament! Awesome!

Then someone suggests they need to have some sort of children’s ministry for the many kids who find the meetings too long. Someone has to organize it, and even though no one wants to just do a churchified “business as usual”, there are those who are level-headed and practical. They’re the ones who point out that there’s just “no need to reinvent the wheel” and that at the very least whoever runs the Children’s’ Church” can use some particular Christian publishing house’s Sunday School material.

Then someone has to start collecting offerings and banking them, keeping track of the monies (to be responsible with “God’s money”...) And so a treasurer is picked, and sooner rather than later a committee selected (“like the first deacons in Acts”) and a Board is Born. And a President of the Board. And an Agenda. And requests from more donations. After all, there’s “no need to reinvent the wheel” and all this stuff is only “organizational”, designed just to help support the fledgling Gathering that everyone so enjoys.

Just like the plywood board provided support to the cement in its wet and fluid state -- just until things got settled. But unexpectedly the cement -- wet and fluid -- wrapped itself secretly around what was supposed to be only a temporary form... and wouldn’t let go.

Somehow, that which flowed through the original group members -- the joy, the sweet spiritual satisfaction -- became subservient to the organizational structure intended to help support its natural, free existence. And when the original group members tried to move beyond the organizational structures designed to give them aid and support, suddenly they found themselves stuck. They had to divide their attention, time and resources between freely Enjoying the Presence of God in their midst (“Where two or three are gathered in My Name...”) and maintaining the organizational structure.

As far as my garden wall goes, I managed to pry it far enough from the cement wall to get my foot on the edge of the wood and stand on it. I am of considerable weight and gradually, jumping violently up and down on the edge of the plywood, I managed to break it free and finally removed it.

I’ve tried the same method with my church, though. I have to admit to some success -- but most groups never do become free from the forms and structures that grew around their spiritual celebration. I know I couldn’t have poured that cement wall without wooden forms. Just can’t do it. But I suppose I could have built the wall differently. For example, I could have built it from brick and mortar. With steel reinforcing, it would have been as strong as the cement.

Now that I think of it, maybe a local church gathering ought to be built the same way: out of brick and mortar.

Or even built -- without organizational forms -- from Living Stones.

What a thought! You know, there’s a Carpenter Who I know is a Builder and a Stone Mason. Maybe before I set a freely flowing Gathering of Believers inside of wooden forms, I should check with Him first on how best to accomplish the building up of the Body of Christ.

Emil & Shell
www.KingdomScribes.net

Ever Since My Misspent Youth. . .

2010-07-02T02:43:00.000-07:00

. . . until today, I've been troubled by the difference between the church in the hands of man and the Church in the Hands of Jesus Christ. For a long time I referred to the one as the church visible and the other as the Church Invisible.

More recently, I've come to understand that both "churches" are visible. The first is typically seen by its steeple, spires and cathedrals, as well as its rituals and ceremonies. But the Church that Jesus builds manifests itself through the proactive Love of those in whom Jesus lives. In line with this, about four decades ago I wrote the following to illustrate how pernicious is mans' "church" in its ability to drag downwards the spirits of its adherents.

Unholy Sepulcher

I fled into the sheltered glory
Of man's massive monument to God --
My gradual 'justing eyes grew dark
So as to pierce the clouds of darkness
Infilling his earthly temple.

I knelt amid the wax works clutter
Of lambent flames to lighten limbo --
My wavering lamp amid the rest
Made redly visible by the swirling dark
Swallowed in death's own heart darkness.

I lay within the cold stone crypt
Of man's massive monument to God --
My smoking wick spiraling upward
So as to darken darker the clouds of darkness
Smothering His earthy temple.

Emil Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

When Do You Know it's "Church"?

2010-05-27T18:48:00.000-07:00

Image by wallyg via Flickr

Recently at the EmergentChurch blog, Andrea asked the following questions about what makes a gathering of people into a "church".

"When so much of how we define missional church is to do with discipleship can we say we have success if we do not know if people have met with the reality of the living God in the process of our efforts?

Here we encounter one of the critical questions of emerging church. How do you know that what you are doing is church? If you do not intentionally meet with the purpose of worshipping God, however fluid a way that may be can you be said to be doing church."[emphasis mine]

These questions are disturbing, partly because they're being asked with an increasing regularity. In Barna's book, Revolution, he notes that in his polls over the last decade, he discovered that hundreds of thousands of Americans have already left their traditional churches in a search for greater, spiritual significance. He makes it clear that he's not calling for any sort of "change" in "church-as-usual", but asks, "In light of the reality of this huge shift in church attendance, what are church-leaders going to do about it?"

Actually, the questions the EmergentChurch blog asks are misleading: They assume a definition for "church" that's not biblical; that is, the questions assume "church" refers to some sort of "gathering" having some sort of "activities". That's not what the Bible says.

An English dictionary gives definitions for "church" like these:

A building used for public, Christian worship

A particular religious organization having its own clergy, buildings, doctrines, etc.

A hierarchy of clergy in such an organization such as the RCC.

Institutionalized religion as a political or social instrument.

Nowhere in the (English) New Testament is the word "church" used as described in any of these definitions. In the original Greek in which the New Testament was written, the word translated as "church" (ekklesia) doesn't mean "church" as typically understood in today's conversations or sermons. The original term (ekklesia) refers to "a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place; an assembly." (Strong's Greek Dictionary) But ekklesia is defined even more closely in the Scriptures which gives its use a even more exact meaning for Christians than its common usage. In the NT, "church" refers to those who anywhere -- in a city, village, region, etc. -- make up the group of human beings who are united with Jesus Christ into one body -- the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth.

Possibly a better English word for ekklesia would be "Family" referring to all those who have been born both of water and the Spirit. [John 3.5ff] "Family" is, after all, a biblical term for this group of people whose Father is in Heaven, Jesus is their elder Brother and whose members are considered brothers and sisters.

Now -- back to the original question in the EmergentChurch: When people get together, how do they know what they're doing is "church"? We can rephrase the question within a more biblically accurate paradigm -- specifically, "family". I grew up in the Swift family whose roots can be traced back over a century to a family farming in Pennsylvania. Today, though, the Swift family has people living in many different states and in other countries around the world. When we have a Swift Family Reunion, we try to pick a location as central to everyone as possible. In earlier years, this often turned out to be our grandparents' house.

So, when everyone gathers at Grandma's house, crowding into the house and into every single room as well as the property outside, what do we have to do in order to be a gathering of the Swifts?

Nothing. "Swift" doesn't refer to what we do but who we are.

And when any portion of the Family of God gathers together -- from two or three or to even more -- what do its members have to do before they can be considered the Family of God? Nothing. They are the Family of God. And what do they have to do to make that gathering a gathering of the Church? Nothing because they are the Church. Church is not what you do but who you are.

Which can really set some religious people free once they catch the distinction. Instead of evaluating what they're doing and how well they're doing it, they can instead gather together, celebrate that they are the Church, and be the Church.

Oh! That's the question: once several people have gathered together, and they are the Church, how do they know they're being the Church?

Jesus says that unbelievers will know His Reality when they see the Love of Christ manifested amongst His followers. [John 13.35] When the members of the Body of Christ (the Church) gather together in His Name, they love one another; they look intently at one another in order to provoke one another to Love and good works; they take the Spirit-gifted talents they've been given and using them, build one another up until -- together -- we reveal to the world the very Presence of the Person of Jesus Christ. [cf. Heb 10.24f, Eph 4.11ff, Rom 12, 1Cor 12-14, et al.]

So, let's say I meet with Syd at Starbucks for coffee. We sit quietly (we do not sing nor do we share Communion wafers.) Knowing each other to be in Christ, together we draw on the Presence of Jesus in His Spirit, and spend some time building each up, encouraging each other, and provoking each other to continue pressing in to doing the Good Works that bring glory to the Father. [Mt. 5.16]

Thus meets the Church of Jesus Christ at Starbucks.

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net/phpBB3

Dialogue, Diaprax & the Death of Christendom

2010-04-09T10:42:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

Conspiracy theorists kill me. Especially "Christian" conspiracy theorists. I've grown up in the church with some of the "best", including Sunday School teachers who raised me on conspiracies both political (Trilateral Commission, John Birchers, etc.) and religious (Antichrist already born in Lebanon, Billy Graham secretly leading Christians into a Marxist, One World Church, etc.) Do not think I'm kidding. There's no humor in my recollections of conspiracies drummed into my head when I was young.

Recently I read a warning about churches adopting a study method called "diaprax". Though it sounded goofy to me, it's apparently a legit word—combing dialectic with praxis. But until I read the whole post, little did I realize it spells the End of Christianity as We Know It. Its author explains how someone managed to combine Marxist dialectic with Hegelian dialectic, along with "occult-led globalists" to produce a system of teaching in today's churches (all of them, I guess) which will lead to the complete compromise of defenseless "Biblical Christians" as they're led to reject all those "pesky and divisive hang-ups" preventing them from forming themselves into a One World Church.

O.K. All humor aside, this guy's point was that Hegelian Dialect is a "consensus process". What he's referring to is a philosophical method of "conversation" described by Hegel in which one person formulates what he considers a "truth", finds someone who disagrees with that "truth", and the two hammer it out until they both reach a compromise. His description isn't accurate, but it makes for an exciting conclusion: demonic church-leaders (he offers a Triad of Schuller, Hybels and that Saddleback guy) are setting up meetings between Biblical Christians and non-Christians (even atheists) who come together to dialog. As they argue with each other, each side gradually gives in a little here, a little there—and in the end they've compromised the "Absolutes of God's Truth".

Let's get this straight: What Lies Beneath this guy's argument is unmitigated arrogance. He doesn't have the humility to first understand what Hegel's dialectical process was all about. But then, second, he believes that the "truths" he espouses are God's Absolutes. Let's take a clearer look at what Hegel intended, and the call for humility for which this guy's post cries out.

Hegel's point is simple and accurate: anytime any human being formulates his or her understanding of some truth, it will inevitably be imperfect or inexact. No one is able to phrase things so perfectly that there's no room left for a better understanding on their part. One of the best ways to sharpen what one believes is to discuss it (respectfully) with someone who disagrees. If all you do is talk with someone who already agrees, whatever shortcomings your understanding has will remain undiscovered.

The Hegelian Dialectic is designed not so much to lead to "compromise" but to greater understanding. It helps bring to light any inadequacies in someone's understanding of a truth. One person lays out what he or she believes, the other challenges some aspect of it (biblically, logically or historically) and this forces the first person to re-think what they believe, to clarify it and to strengthen it. In a sense, the underlying principle is that of gaining focus by contrast and comparison. If you have no other argument with which to compare it, you can't see where it might fall short.

For example: I believe that salvation comes to us not by good works but by our union with Jesus Christ—in His death, burial and resurrection. If I discuss this with someone who agrees with me, my understanding grows no deeper. But if I dialog with someone who claims that salvation comes by believing correct doctrine, in the course of our conversation there's a very real possibility that I may be faced with a question I can't answer immediately and will have to do further research. Or even more likely, my use of a particular verse may be challenged and I'll have to go back to my studies to confirm whether my use of it is accurate.

Call it "diaprax", "dialectic", "dialog" or just plain argument, the heart of this process is humility. For you to deliberately enter into such a conversation with someone who you know disagrees with you demands two assumptions: that you don't know everything already and whatever you DO think you know, MUST be imperfect.

Maybe this approach won't lead to One World Government, but it'll certainly sharpen your understanding of truth, and maybe (along the Way) win a brother or two...

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Yes Virginia—There IS an Easter Bunny!

2010-03-31T20:25:00.000-07:00

When church-goers refuse to see that they themselves are the One hanging on that Cross, whatever they DO visualize there might just as well be a bunny for all the good it does. You can protest that "NO! It's Christ on the Cross—not me!" but then you've just eliminated the very Reason for the Season: That Jesus provides you the opportunity to die with Him in order to live with Him, and thereby become freed from sin and its penalty, death—which prepares you for that Next Great Roller-coaster Ride called Resurrection from Death to Eternal Life!

But if you haven't ever joined Him on that Cross—if He hangs there "alone", it does you no more good than if the Eveready Bunny were writhing in bloody pain. The bunny is the wrong "substitution". Be it the bloodied corpse of Jesus or a pastel corpse of fabric, both are ineffective substitutes for what really needs to be hanging there.

Namely, you.

In the New Testament, the apostle Paul wrote the following lines:

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me." [Gal 2.20]

Notice how Paul's focus is that even though Jesus was crucified on the Cross, he shifts the focus, saying that he—himself—has been crucified on that Cross along with Jesus Christ. When during this Easter Season, as people look to the Cross, if they don't see themselves crucified there as Paul did, it might as well be the Easter Bunny.

When a couple of years ago, Combs—a Tampa Tribune cartoonist—showed the Easter Bunny crucified in place of Christ, most likely he only intended to illustrate the concern of thousands of church-goers who worry that our materialistic society has lost the "True Meaning" of Easter. After all, Christians seem to have already lost the Battle for the Reason for the Season to that jolly old elf whose name almost rhymes with "Satan". And the Easter ship seems to be sinking rapidly as well.

But Combs' Bunny on the Cross unintentionally illustrates the confusion amongst Christians as to who actually belongs on that Cross. Oh, sure—Jesus "belongs" there. But when Paul makes the point that it wasn't just Jesus up on that Cross but he, himself as well, it suggests that somehow it better not just be "Jesus" up there—but you or me as well.

Are you a Christian? Let's be clear about what Paul's claiming here. When you trusted in Jesus for His Work of Salvation, Heaven responded with a Supernatural Act: God made you and Jesus into One Person. In all the New Testament, this Union between every person who trusts in Jesus and Jesus Himself is re-stated in many ways. Even the idea of calling the people of God by the name, "Body of Christ", shows how all of us together are One with Him. He's the "Head" of that Body, but we're its "arms and legs".

Now, this Union is the means whereby you're saved from sin and death. You're not saved because "Jesus paid the price" —at least not by that alone. You're not saved because you go to the right church or believe the right doctrine or support the right ministries. No. You're only saved by your being mode one with Jesus Christ.

Which brings us back to Paul again who says that he has been crucified with Christ. In other words, he has been made One with Jesus, and so when Jesus hung on that Cross, Paul did too.

Or you, for that matter. If you're supernaturally made One with Jesus, then when He hung on that Cross, so did you. It's like getting into a car with someone. Let's say he's a crazy driver and after you seat-belt yourself in, he accelerates and drives straight over cliff. If you're in the passenger seat, where do you go?

Straight over the cliff. You and the driver, in a sense, are made "one" by getting into the same car together, and what happens to the driver happens to you. So let's say you hear Jesus has provided the means for your being delivered from sin and death, and you believe it. You trust Him for your salvation. God makes you and Jesus One, and the Ride of your Life begins!

As He's hanging on the Cross—so are you. (Because you and He are One.) As Jesus is taken off the Cross and buried—so are you. [Paul, Rom 6, says "We were buried with Christ."] As Jesus lay in the Tomb—where were you? You laid in the Tomb as well. And as the Father raised Jesus from the dead into Resurrection Life, what happened to you?

You too were raised from the dead into Resurrection Life. (Already. Now.) Because if it's true of Jesus right now, and you and He are One right now—then you also are seated in heavenly places, already enjoying Eternal Life.

You don't have Eternal Life just because God was nice and wiped all sin off your record. You don't have Eternal Life because you obeyed the Rules and went to the right denomination and paid your tithes and tried really, really hard to be good so God would be happy with you. None of that is true. No! You have Eternal life right now because Jesus has Eternal Life right now, and you and He are One.

Back to the Easter Bunny. If when you look to the Cross this Easter, you only see Jesus (and you don't see yourself on the Cross, "crucified with Christ"), then you might as well be staring at the Easter Bunny for all the good it does. The truth of Easter isn't that Jesus "paid the price", but that in dying for humankind's Sin, in experiencing triumph over sin, death and even all the forces of wickedness in this world—in winning all these triumphs...

... He has offered (if you trust Him) to take you with Him, all the Way.

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

Are You Still—Whatever?

2010-03-17T18:04:00.000-07:00

Image by Jeep Novak! via Flicker

People who have known me for a few years occasionally ask the "Are you still... [whatever]?" question. Which (with me) is complex. Let's see: Am I still Baptist? Am I still Fundamentalist? Am I still Evangelical? Am I still Latter Day Rain? Am I still Charismatic? Am I still Gospel Outreach? Am I still Pentecostal? Am I still "Christian" or am I "post-Christian"?

Or, "Am I still saved?"

The answer, of course, is blowin' in the wind, the answer my friend—is whichever way the Wind is blowing. Each of these labels refer to movements which have had some validity in God's Kingdom in the past, as well as some legitimacy even today. But the Wind "blows where it wishes" (as Jesus put it), ending His sentence with, "So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Which won? Wishy-washy, wave-tossed or Wind-blown—sometimes it's hard to tell the difference! But when one approaches others with humility and a clear intent to honor them, it's not hard to see God's Finger in the reality of many people's lives where church-goers would not expect it. Likewise, with a touch of theological modesty (and maybe forgiveness), even denominations, associations, "movements", blogs and .orgs can admit God's Presence to some degree in these movements of the past.

But if someone is asking me if I'm still—¿whatever?—it occurs to me that it really isn't my choice. If the question is, "Are you still saved?" I think that Answer only comes from God (and feel free to ask Him.) So if someone says, "Are you still" (say) "Baptist?" I think you'd have to ask some renowned Baptist if I still fit in that classification. (As in, "Are you kidding? No way is he a Baptist... We don't allow people like him in our group." Which just reminds me somehow of Groucho's famous quip that he'd never consent to belong to any club that would accept someone like him into membership...)

In other words, "belonging" is a decision of others. Like, "Sure I'm a such-and-such" but only when they actually let me in can I say I am!

So, anyway—what am I???

Well—Wind blown, I hope.

Em&M
www.KingdomScribes.net
www.KingdomScribes.InJesus.com

Does Everything, Always, Have to Come Down to Works?

2010-03-02T11:28:00.001-08:00

Image by Stuck in Customs via Flickr

It seems natural to assume that if the apostle Paul says that our salvation results from our faith and not our works, that people who read and believe that statement will conclude that salvation results from our faith -- not our works.

But there are innumerable ways in which to put works back in the center of our being followers of Christ and of our eternal life. Passages such as in the gospel of John in which Jesus says that "if you love Me, you'll obey Me" and in James, "You tell me about your 'faith', and I'll show you my faith through my works" are used to rebuild the foundation of works into Christian's lives. It goes something like this: "Oh, yes -- your salvation (and eternal life) come only by faith, but if you truly have faith, you will have works as well... Now, let's examine your works."

It's easy enough to figure out why Christians keep switching back to living by works: it's easier than the alternative.

And there's the rub: many Christians don't even know what the alternative is to living by works. Do you? If you evaluate your own spiritual life, do you have any means to do so other than measuring your "works" to determine "how you're doing with God"?

With most Christians, the only way they know how to "substantiate" their living a truly Christian life is by checking out their works. Couple of problems with this, though: (1) we're so incredibly biased when it comes to evaluating our own works we (unconsciously) lean toward excusing sin without even recognizing that it's sin! (2) And the second problem is, as Believers, we don't live by works. Not now, not ever.

This falls under the heading of Paul's challenge to the Galatian Christians: "Who has bewitched you -- having begun in the Spirit, now you imagine you're going to make yourselves mature by fleshly works?" Again in this same letter to the Galatians, Paul says, "Walk in the Spirit and you won't fulfill the works of the flesh." Notice, Paul doesn't say so0mething like, "Walk according to Jesus' commands" or "Obey these rules". It isn't the person who "walks according to God's rules" who inherits the Kingdom of God, but the person who "walks in the Spirit".

The difference is further heightened by Paul's use of the words "works" and "fruit". He lists a bunch of sins and identifies them like this: "Now, the works of the flesh are these..." But when he lists the godly stuff like "love, joy, peace", Paul doesn't call them "works" but "fruit". After all, he could have written, "Now the works of a true Christian are these..." and listed, "love, joy, peace..."

But these aren't the "works" of a Christian! These are the works of Jesus Christ! They're never our works! Which is why Paul calls them fruit. Now, fruit comes from a branch that is growing out of a tree or a vine. The picture Paul is using is that Jesus is the tree or the vine, and we are branches in Him, and because we're in Him we are bearing fruit. The fruit comes from Him. More to the point, the fruit comes because we're in Him.

We aren't called to do good works. In fact, "good works" are sort of like an accident in a Believer's life -- they're simply "what happens" when a branch is in the tree and life is flowing. The branch doesn't have to try and force its fruit out, doesn't have to think about it or try and make it happen -- it's simply what happens when a branch is in the tree and life flows. So it is with Believers: the focus isn't "you must produce these works" but "you must be in Christ". And when you examine yourself with the list in Galatians 5 (love, joy, peace, etc.), if you determine that these "fruits" are NOT evident in your life, the response isn't to be "well, by gosh and by golly, I better try harder -- I'm going to start being more loving, more joyous, more...!" No! The right response is to look toward Jesus (this is the job of the Spirit -- to show us Jesus) and press into a closer relationship with Him. The life-style of a Believer doesn't come from stirring up one's flesh (to obey God better) but from stirring up our spirits and knowing Christ more.

This is the prayer that Paul prays in Phil. 3 in which he explains that everything "good" he tried to do in his own strength was wasted effort. Instead, he's thrown out all that wasted effort in exchange for being found in Christ and knowing Him. He' not saying "knowing about Jesus" here, because the word he originally used (in Greek) is ginosko which means, "to have personal acquaintance or experience with Jesus" [Strong's Greek Dictionary].

Any time anyone teaches or preaches to you that you need to pursue some pattern of behavior, stop listening. If there's a "lapse" in your life-style and if how you're living doesn't match the Bible's description of someone who's living in Christ, don't focus on changing your behavior ever (which is sheer delusion.) Focus instead on better knowing the Person of Jesus Christ. After all, as it says in Jn 17.3, "This is Eternal Life -- to know the Father and He Whom the Father sent..."

Are you in Him? Your life will show it. Your life doesn't show it? Know Him.

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

Fantasy Sells -- But, in the Church?

2010-02-13T20:59:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -- so reads the Constitution of the United States. An odd addition to a political document -- as though the government of a nation can somehow assure a person's happiness. But truly, this strange focus became part of the Revolution taking place on the shores of the New World over two centuries ago.

Originally, the framers of the Constitution had used another phrase: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property", but "property" had been discarded in deference for "happiness". Still, has happiness ever been the province of government?

No. But what has been the province of government has been ruining the happiness of its citizens! Throughout every century, governments have ruled in ways that have made life itself -- mere survival -- dreary, weary and even devastating. A glimpse of a typical response of common people to their government is seen in the wonderfully painful "slice of life" movie, Fiddler on the Roof, displaying the instability of life under the Russian Tzars. Early in the movie, villagers challenge their spiritual leader, the rabbi, with a fantastic question. They ask, "Is there a blessing for the Tzar?" The rabbi hesitates, slowly nods and recites, "The Lord bless the Tzar, and keep him... far, far away..."

Through the times and cultures of human history, government has more often than not kept the people from peace rather than keep the people at peace. The framers of the American Constitution were guaranteeing -- not that everyone would be happy -- but that the government they were newly fashioning would not govern the people so as to remove the possibility of happiness.

Today, the American populace has taken hold on this "right" to happiness with a vengeance. Oddly, though, it seems to have changed like a man changes into a wolf under the twilight of a full moon. It has transmuted from a search for "happiness" into laying hold instead on fantasy. Fantasy, in anyone's dictionary, has to do with imagination, but it becomes insidious when people mistake it for reality. As P. T. Barnum never said, "There's a sucker born every minute," and the greatest problem with buying into someone's fantasy is when that fantasy replaces reality in a person's mind.

Fantasy has always been Big Business. With the advent of the Internet, it's even bigger than ever. The number one moneymaker online the last few years has been pornography. Which is, if nothing else, fantasy. But then when we combine what money is made in Hollywood -- another major vendor for fantasy -- and add to that the printed pages of romance, adventure, science fiction and fantasy books and comics, the total financial expenditure on chasing fantasy racks up unbelievably high numbers in our society. That's not even to touch on the personal "fantasies" of drug use ("It helps me handle life") and alcoholism ("I never meant to run over that child") which destroy so many lives and communities.

But -- lest you think too highly of yourself if you're one of the few who spends little or nothing on fantasy -- what about your politicians? Do you vote to put one person into office or another one out? Do you ever listen to the public speeches about "vote for me and I'll put a chicken in every pot" or "when you vote for me, you vote for change"? Isn't it clear that professional politicians will say anything that comes to their minds that they think will gain your vote and that of your neighbor -- whether it's based in reality or is just another form of popular fantasy? And (BTW) when you chalk up what fantasy in government costs us in comparison with porn, Hollywood and fantasy literature all combined into one -- government takes the cake (if not the whole, damn bakery.)

Yet, in reflecting on a modern society such as ours that has transformed the pursuit of pleasure into the commerce of fantasy -- in literature, media and politics -- can this same society keep fantasy out of the pews? (Or even out of the temples or synagogues?) Back in the sixties and prior to the greatest civil-rights victories, one popular book re-examining the place that traditional Christianity held in America asked how was it possible that the most segregated hour in America was from 11 AM to 12 noon every Sunday morning? In those days, the majority of Americans still called America "God's country" and yet fought a wholesale battle against bringing justice into the streets. Evangelical churches tended to stand as bastions of conservative culture, resisting Change in society even when that which they defended consisted of that which God hated. One critic asked the question as to how it was possible for Christians -- people who claimed to love God and called Him "Father" -- to sit every Sunday morning, surrounded by stained-glass representations of the Power and Love of God bringing salvation and deliverance into the lives of men and women throughout the ages, and practice feeling nothing.

Churches have often cultivated fantasy for their members on many levels. Up until two generations ago, people voted into public office wooed their supporters by attending churches of their choice on Sunday mornings. Even today, many businessmen still woo their communities by sitting in pews or on church boards. Yet the politicians who have appeared in churches and the businessmen who have sat in pews on Sunday, have during the ensuing week been caught countless times in financial frauds and sexual infidelities until it's become such trite and cliche social humor that not even SNL wastes time presenting parodies against them.

One would think that if there were any place in which fantasy is disallowed, it would be the church. But people inevitably enter into socially-shared fantasies, and if they are "church-goers", there will be "church fantasies". Is there no hope for more objective levels of reality? Is there no remedy for fantasy within the Church?

There is one hope -- only one. This hope in fact strikes most deeply into the nature and the heart of what "church" is supposed to be. Whereas "church" is so often ritual, formulistic behavior, vigorously held doctrines and creeds -- all these fall far short of what the Bible shows Church, in fact, to be.

And the true nature of what is "Church" also renders fantasy powerless. It undermines fantasy for at the heart of the Church lies truth -- and the Truth is a Person and that is getting to its true nature. The "Church" is not an organization -- political or social -- made by man, controlled by man and serving human purposes. The "Church" is (you might say) an animal, a creature, so to speak. It isn't a "social structure" but an organism. It's a living organism unique in existence since its parts are composed of God and humanity. Its "head" is the Person of Jesus Christ and the unity of its parts, its joints and ligaments holding it as one, are spiritual and not material. It's rather "Cheshire" you might say -- being visible and yet not quite at the same time. Not that we occasionally see nothing but its grin, but that we never see it in its totality. We only see it in its members -- those men and women, jointed and knitted together in the Love and the Power of God; people whose lives effectively touch those people in need all about them, bringing the blessings of God into their lives -- the blessings of God and none of the curses of man.

This spiritually jointed Organism, which lives everywhere throughout this earth, lives in Truth (which is Love) and in which no fantasy can exist. Strangely enough, those who are in this spiritual Body are lacking fantasy but not lacking joy. The happiness which they "pursue" doesn't come through fantasy at the expense of reality but it instead comes through reality at the expense of depravity. Thus, a person who is truly living in and lived in by God finds joy not by pretending righteousness but by practicing love. Such a person doesn't speak to the needs of people around them with lovely words such as "Be warmed! Be filled! Begone!" but with acts of love -- giving to the poor, aid; to the hungry, food; to the naked, clothing.

Pursuing God in one's life and in one's nation doesn't require that people swear off the pursuit of happiness -- but they certainly must forswear the pursuit of fantasy, especially when doing so in the Name of God.

Emil & Shell Swift

The Believer's Case for Homosexual Marriage

2010-02-04T21:12:00.001-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

European influence on church forms has been casually accepted for generations without the close examination it deserves. In the United States today, for example, when people argue whether gays should be allowed to get married or not, they often find their dialogue foundering on the rocks of cultural and religious preconceptions.

One such preconception is that "marriage" -- as practiced in the United States -- is primarily a religious practice. In fact, marriage is in itself a "marriage" of civil law and religious traditions. It can be argued that "marriage" predates American law making it fundamentally religious. Yet the telling point isn't how "old" an institution is, but who controls its practice. And in America and other Western nations, "marriage" is under the control of the civil government.

Consider how completely marriage is primarily a civil exercise. Let's look at three possible variations: (1) Two people (man and woman) first go to the county courthouse for a license to wed, then go in front of a priest or preacher to repeat a set of vows in front of witnesses; (2) Two people (man and woman) go to the county courthouse for a license to wed and exchange vows in front of two witnesses and a Justice of the Peace (i.e. no church); (3) Two people (man and woman) skip the county courthouse and license, and instead stand in front of a priest or preacher and repeat a set of vows in front of witnesses.

Now -- of the three options, which people are "married"? How about #1 -- the ones who have both a civil license and church vows? Yes. How about #2 -- the ones who have only a civil license and no church vows? Yes. How about #3 -- the ones who have no civil license and only church vows?

The answer to #3 is no. If all a couple has is a wedding in front of their church family consisting of traditional vows but no civil license, then they're not considered married. Even Christians don't consider it a "marriage" without a civil license, and Christians do consider it "marriage" if there's only a civil license and ceremony with no religious ceremony. Civil law trumps religious claims to the contrary.

In Western nations, "marriage" is a legal contract. It's a contract that primarily oversees the mutual commingling of assets between a man and a woman. Marriage is primarily a civil matter, sanctioned by government due to legal licenses issued by and recorded in local courthouses -- not churches, synagogues, mosques or temples.

But how did the civil government ever get its hands on "marriage" which historically is a spiritual covenant between a man and a woman and God Himself?

Americans and Europeans trace their cultural linage to Judeo-Christian roots. The First Marriage, in Western history, is that which took place between Adam and Eve in the Presence of God when there were no other people on earth. If you read through both the Old Testament and the New, you can't find any marriage "ceremony" other than the First One. Even Jesus re-confirmed the ancient ceremony when He observed, "Haven’t you read that the Creator made them male and female in the beginning and that He said, ‘That’s why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one’? So they are no longer two but one. Therefore, don’t let anyone separate what God has joined together."

Even more astonishing is that nothing in the Bible gives us anything approximating the typical elements of the modern wedding ceremony. Biblically, two people getting married don’t need a civil license, they don't need witnesses and they don't need a wedding cake. Not to put too fine a point on it -- they don't need a preacher "uniting them in marriage" because that union comes into existence physically. (Hence, the apostle Paul's warning to Believers in Corinth to stop having multiple sex partners because every time two people "come together", they spiritually "become one".)

The current brouhaha over whether gays can "get married" or not is resolved easily in the minds and hearts of people who start by discerning the differences between civil law, religious (non-biblical) traditions and spiritual reality. What a gay couple is asking for is the right to have both the legal contract and the legal title of "marriage" as bestowed by the civil government on a man and a woman. This legal contract has nothing to do with the spiritual reality of a man and a woman establishing a covenant relationship between themselves before God.

There's one last point to be made here. Not only is that spiritual covenant which is established between a man and a woman not owned by the civil government, it's not owned by the religious establishment either. Let's be clear that even after this blog is read, the word "marriage" is still going to be used to mean different things. So when the State uses the word "marriage", that "marriage" is under their control; when a church or church leaders use the word "marriage", that "marriage" is under their control. But when you and your beloved use the word marriage, it's up to you as to whether it's civil marriage or religious marriage or the freedom of biblical marriage -- that simple but unalterable covenant established between two lovers and the God Who Loves them.

Want to Go to Heaven? Just Don't Go to Church...

2010-01-26T00:54:00.000-08:00

Recently, a forum guest asked about the effect sin had on going to Heaven or not. Here's his question:

I guess my definition of backsliding is different than yours. I don't see sinning, say you told a lie, as being a backslider, but rather just a sinner. Would God eternally condemn you for telling a lie? I don't think so, as that would lessen the sacrifice of Christ IMO.

Actually, sin has nothing whatsoever to do with going to Heaven. Or, for that matter, going to Hell.

Nothing.

Nothing whatsoever. Heaven or Hell is simply not a "sin" issue.

People think something like, "When I die I sure don't want to go to Hell. I hope I've managed to do whatever I had to to get into Heaven." But this is a pagan thought, not biblical. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that we need to "do something" so that when we die we'll "go to heaven". [In fact, just try that sometime – do a online Bible search for "go to heaven" anywhere in the whole, entire Bible and you'll see it isn't there.]

The proverbial "man on the street" thinks that if the Bible tells us anything, it's telling us how to "go to Heaven". But God isn't interested in us "going to Heaven"! He's interested in something very different. What God wants isn't for us to "go to Heaven", but to live in a Heavenly Relationship with Him now. And of course, a "Heavenly Relationship" that starts now is never-ending!

It's not that complicated. For example: when a man and a woman marry, the Bible refers to it as "the twain becoming one flesh" or two people becoming one. How foolish would it be if a man loved a woman but stayed totally away from her and instead begged, "When I die, can we be buried side-by-side in the cemetery so I can spend eternity with you?" She'd tell him to get lost and go looking for love in a better place!

God's not interested in you after you die – that's way too late. He's in love with you now. His only interest is a Relationship with you now – but (in fact) a now Relationship actually becomes a Forever Relationship with God in the mix. Understand -- "now's" the focus and not "later when I die, God."

Do you want a really clear picture of what Eternal Life is? Are you satisfied with dreaming vaguely of unending "bliss" with rivers of wine and scores of virgins? (Oops! Wrong religious context...) Or tables groaning under the weight of aromatic, stuffed Christmas Geese, mint jellies, Hasty Puddings and endless hors d'oeuvres on Ritz crackers? If this sounds good to you, dream on, but the Bible is uncompromisingly clear on what "Eternal Life" actually is.

The biblical definition of Eternal Life is spelled out by John the Beloved [Jn 17.3] when he starts out, "This is Eternal Life..." He defines it. He says, "...this is Eternal Life..."

Here it is: "This is Eternal Life – that a person knows God and the One Whom God sent."

Want Eternal Life? Know God. That's it. No, "go to church", "do good works", "give your tithes and offerings", "join the right church", "give charity to the little children in Africa", "memorize Bible verses", "say kind things to your neighbor"... No. Do you want to know what Eternal Life is? It's to know God, and to know Jesus.

Let's not forget where we started. "Will God 'condemn' a person to hell for some little sins?" And I said that sin has nothing to do with going to Heaven or Hell. And here's why: When Jesus died on the Cross, He took away the penalty for your sins. One way the Bible puts it is that He washed away your sins. How can "sin" be an issue (especially an eternal issue) when Jesus already "washed them away"?

It's simple: Going to Heaven or Hell no longer has anything to do with the issue of sins, because Jesus put "paid" to that problem.

So if "trying to keep from sinning too bad" hasn't got anything to do with going to Heaven (or avoiding Hell), what does matter? Here it is again: "This is Eternal Life – that they know God and the One Whom God sent." If you know Jesus, you'll live for Eternity.

Let's look at just what it means to "know" God and to "know" Jesus. Many people jump to the wrong conclusion that "knowing Jesus" means going to church and listening to sermons about Jesus. It doesn't.

To make it clearer as to what this really means, let's look at a married couple again. Let's say that Bill loves his wife, Alice, and he knows her. Yeah – knows her in the biblical sense.

What's it mean? It means that the two of them have become one flesh. Right – they've had intercourse. The Bible teaches that when two people have intercourse, they're joined together in a spiritually fundamental way. (Which is why it pays to be, well, "restrained" in one's impulses. Even if you're an American President.)

So Bill doesn't just know about Alice. He doesn't just have some information about Alice. He hasn't gone to church to hear a sermon about Alice. He knows her – personally and intimately. And when it says [in Jn 17.3] that Eternal Life is that we know God and His Son, Jesus, it uses this same word in the Greek in which John originally wrote. This word "know" doesn't mean to "know God" intellectually, logically, rationally, philosophically or theologically. It doesn't mean to know about God. It doesn't even mean to "believe" in the Jesus story. (Certainly it does NOT mean that!)

It means to "know God" personally,and intimately. And this "knowing" God IS Eternal Life.

But how can you or I know God? Or Jesus, for that matter? (In case you haven't noticed, they're both invisible.) It seems impossible, but actually there's a very good reason we can know God.

That's because, He wants us to know Him. So He's made Himself very accessible. Here's the whole reason God sent the Holy Spirit back about 2,000 years ago. [Acts 2] The Holy Spirit is, like, everywhere... and it's His job to connect us with God so that we can "know" Him.

It's a matter of taking Jesus at His word. Jesus tells us that His death on the Cross was all that it took to deliver us from sin and death and to prepare us to live with Him (in an intimate Relationship, knowing Him) for-ever. He says He took all our sin on Himself, paid the penalty for that sin (death) and that He can share that Victory over sin and death with us if we want it. (Or, if we pridefully prefer our own company, we can live separately from Him forever -- which is called Hell.)

Now – when you hear all that Jesus claims to have "won" for you on the Cross, do you trust Him? Do you think you can count on Him for your eternal life? If you do, that's all it takes. The Bible says that when you trust that Jesus truly has worked out our Eternal Life by His death on the Cross as our substitute -- successfully washing away your sin and mine -- that God's Spirit makes a Connection between us and Him. An eternal Connection and -- from that point on -- we're made one with Him.

Just take a second and think about that line: Those who were "twain" (two) have been made one. The whole marriage thing is a spiritual picture about how God loves us. It's not just Bill and Alice who are made one; it's you and Jesus. When you trust the work He did for your salvation, the Holy Spirit makes you and Him one – and as one, everything that's His is now yours.

Again, it's a lot like marriage. When Bill and Alice get married, not only are the two of them joined, but their assets are also joined. All that is Bill's is now Alice's, and what is Alice's is Bill's. When we trust Jesus to deliver us from sin and death and we're made one with Him, then His death becomes our death; His burial becomes our burial; His Resurrection from the dead becomes our Resurrection from the dead and His Eternal Life (which HE already has) becomes our Eternal Life (which we also have now, just by being made spiritually one with Him.)

Back to the opening question: does sin have anything to do with going to Heaven or Hell? No. The only thing that has an impact on "where we go after death" is whether we trust Jesus for saving us from eternal death and allow His Spirit to make us one with Him – and Eternal Life becomes ours from that point on.

Another thing that becomes ours (of course) is Him. It's even better than marriage since when we're married, we are "made one", but when Bill goes to the hardware store, Alice may or may not go with him. But when you become one with Jesus Christ, He lives within you, and you in Him. Literally, a person who is in Christ and in whom Jesus dwells, learns to communicate. We come to recognize when He's speaking to us. We learn to take daily experiences to Him, share what we feel and listen to His perspectives on life.

When we read the Bible, it's no longer simply some book that got wrote a long time ago because it's Author is living inside us. So we read a little bit of Scripture, and then we have to stop a bit so we can "discuss" it with Him. "When someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other to him," you read. But instead of jumping to conclusions, you hold your intellectual horses, quiet your interior voice, and let His Voice mingle with your thoughts. You'll hear things you never even dreamed you'd think – because it's the Voice of the One Who loves you, living within you, and communing with you.

Want to "go to Heaven"? Just hear the good news of what Jesus has done for you, the deliverance from sin and death that He's worked out for you – let God's Spirit make you and Jesus one – and start living that Heavenly Life NOW. Once begun, it becomes your "Never Ending Story" -- growing to know Him more and ever more!

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

New Year, New Decade -- New Focus!

2010-01-06T19:02:00.000-08:00

Happy New Year (and a new decade as well!) Just a quick note to say that our KingdomScribes' blog has been changing over the months. The lead-in description (top of the page) has recently been "re-focused". You can see some other changes in the blog's right-hand margin, as well. We've got a "quiz" we intend to run for awhile. We're also looking for ways to make your commenting easier than it has been in the past.

KingdomScribes (Mt 13) always will hold firmly to Believers learning simple methods for reading the Scriptures for themselves. Every one needs to be able to read and apply verses accurately and profoundly. But we have a more fundamental purpose which is helping Believers to be "Christians" without being "religious". The heart of this perspective is simple: the Center of Christianity is the Person of Jesus Christ. Everything else is religious distraction. Many church people are committed to a denomination or a set of worship rituals or church events. Instead, their Christian life must come from Jesus Himself. Otherwise, it's mere religion and insignificant to their future or to their society.

The Church that Jesus is building today can't be built by doing the same things that for 2,000 years haven't worked! This blog is intended to help Believers to "step aside" from their familiar, mental images of "church" to examine their Christian life in a non-religious way.

At the right hand of this blog, you can choose to have each new post sent automatically to your email. And for you tweeters, you can "tweet" any post to your tweeter friends with a comment (with the "Tweet bout this blog...") button.

Bless you all and have a wonderful new decade!

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

For statistical review purposes only: "Clenches onto any surface with a tight unremovable grip."

Two Trees for the Christmas Holiday

2009-12-13T03:35:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

"O Christmas Tree..". 'Tis the season to go gah-gah over aromatic fir trees, gaily decorated. But there are a couple of "trees" that are of an incalculable value to humanity -- and here's a few words about the eternal victory of one over the other (followed by a few words of explanation on the use of poetry to undermine and violate the status quo...)

Here Lies the Tree, Slain.

There is a deep power that governs all true Christians, defining Good and Evil; good elders of the church will rise to cry out against the relativistic moral code revealed in those words, "For morals are not relative but Absolute; a Written Code and not an existential sense of what God might say from day to day, revealing Truth; words that are black and white and not up to any who 'hear' the Voice of God!" In these stands still that Tree...

Broken pieces, each slippery moss-wet with futile promises fitly stilled,
No longer green but sickly darkened by decay;
Wild meadow-grasses tufting 'round these ruined rounds of trunk
once destined staves of clubs and iron-banded caissons
(rolling, rolling, rolling along)

Not struck by God or lightening burnt, blocks
Clear-cut, clean-lines edges sharp still
Showing Man's hand felled and bucked this Tree
Felled it in specificity.
No storm-drove Wrath, no Windfall this,
Be axe or maul, fellers' blade or coffiners' adz;
We gather 'round in astonied praise --
There in shirt of tartan plaid, trousered legs and shod in cork
Stands That Feller,
That Everlasting Man

Emil Swift
Christmas, 2009

Can a Poem be Read Without a Jug of Wine at Hand?

It's been said often enough that writing a poem reflects either the world about you or the world within. More precisely, poetry can only reflect the world within you. Even if you use artificial means to "construct" a poem -- such as giving a computer program a specific vocabulary list and having it "write for you", or simply put words drawn from a hat onto paper in the order they are drawn -- each of these reflect the world within. Truly, these examples would be chaotic "worlds", but one not unfamiliar to denizens of the physical world about us.

When you read lyrics written by Emily Dickenson, for example, you enter into the world within her. Technically you have not "left" your own, but there is a unifying of the world within her and the world within you. Some may object to this as a relativistic nonsense, insisting instead in the idea that there can be but "one world" and we all are "within it". But two truths argue against that illiberal view: (1) how can there not be "worlds" within each of us when Jesus, looking at His disciples, reveals that "the Kingdom of Heaven is within you" -- can there be heavenly Kingdoms within us, and not earthly worlds as well? And (2) the modern quixotic science of quantum physics (or mechanics -- who call tell where reality lies?) offers evidences that not only are there enough "worlds" to go around, one per taker, but that there are certainly more universes than necessary for anyone daring to inhabit properties of an unlimited nature...

With Emily, we read something like this:

Because I could not stop for Death --
He kindly stopped for me --
The Carriage held but just Ourselves --
And Immortality.

And with the reading, her world and ours have touched -- almost a sidereal union you might say since we prefer our orientation to take us beyond this solar plane into a greater, galactic dance, tripping (as never before) the Light Fantastick. A poem is, at its best, a Royal, gilt-edged Invitation to come to the Ball and enjoy a twizzling twist and a turning twirl in the Grandest Ballroom of the Heavens -- "Who will come," He pleads, "and dance with me and my Beloved?"

As I read "Because I could not stop for Death, He kindly stopped for me...", the concept of "Death" operative in the world within me is taken and shaken (a sort of baked, chicken dish, I think), and suddenly within my world, Emily's "Death" has entered politely -- with gentlemanly grace -- and I sense within myself a delicate decline of fear at Death's eventual appearance.

Her world and mine have touched.

Understand, though, there are worlds within others I fear to touch, much less enter. The nature of poetry as a Door to the world within another human being does not mean passing through every Door is either safe or pleasant. I for one, have tasted of the world within Hemingway and beat a hasty retreat, having found therein a world in which not only does God not exist, neither does hope, trust, or a selfless care for others. In my younger days I did choose to enter into Ayn Rand's dark world and -- not recognizing any familiar landmarks -- found myself lost for a little while, staying longer than I should (or should I say, "overstaying her 'Not Welcome' sign...) Certainly I found her claim that she was not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of "reason" doubtful. I can't help but compare her egoism to that of the so-called 15th century Reformer, Martin Luther. Whereas she declares that "if one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest [egoism and the rejection of altruism] follows", instead he declares that if one "loves God", one is then free to do whatever he or she desires. Not that I choose to spend very much time in the world of a Reformer either, unless it be Kanzo Uchimura or Kokichi Kurosaki, who together breathe the rarified air of Heaven I seek.

Getting back to where we started -- that writing a poem reflects the world within you: No one will be able to read a poem properly, though, if it isn't understood that a poem is poetry and not prose -- and not a musical recital nor some sort of laboriously indirect discourse. A poem, in fact, combines several genres. At the very least a poem combines within itself music, discourse, and spiritual Vision. To read a poem well, a person must set themselves down in a place of personal solitude that allows uninterrupted focus -- just as you would if you went to hear a theatrical rendition of Tennessee Williams' "Glass Menagerie". Why pay the big bucks if you allowed distractions? So let the seat be comfortable, the neighbors quiet and the lights dimmed so that all focus goes into savoring the world into which Williams has opened a door (or a window, perhaps.)

The words of a poem form music -- some more lyrically and others more discordantly, but then, such are the worlds in which others live. Often, the placement of words are not ruled by grammar but by sound, feeling or even intuition. They ask to be savored aloud (rolling them over the tongue as a fine wine and not swallowing quickly.) The words form less of a dialogue but more of a discourse -- as the Romans put it, a "running back and forth" between you and the author whose world (and whose heart) lay naked before your gaze. Treat a poem with respect, and it will bring you once more into a Garden in which the layers are stripped away and you can be vulnerable together and not even realize your nakedness. In the humor of today's media, you might call such an experience "Dancing with the Naked Poet" - if for no other reason than to deceive your friends into thinking something hilariously naughty about you.

Possibly the greatest element of every poem is that at its Root and in its Core it is a spiritual Vision. Emily could not have introduced us so tenderly to her penultimate Visitor had she not first Seen him. Consider for example, when a grade school teacher desperately tries to "teach" her students how to write a poem: she gives them a "form" (probably haiku, for beginners) and tells them to look about them, find something in nature (a fly, a web, a beam of light sifting through particles of dust hanging in the air of the classroom) and "describe it in words". Notice that she is attempting to introduce the idea that a poem expresses a world. She won't tell them that the "world" they encapsulate into so few words is actually within them, because more likely than not she won't know that secret herself. But consider little Johnnie and little Haadiyah who both happen on a little larval Lepidoptera -- a creature barely two inches long, the children stare in astonishment at this stunningly colored, outrageously haired, Gypsy Moth caterpillar, crawling up the side of a bookshelf in the classroom. Though both young children look carefully, uninterruptedly, at the caterpillar, the neuro-chemical process in the boy's brain and the neuro-chemical process in the girl's brain are not the same. One processes the creature's texture and wiggly movement of its many legs, whereas the other sees that it has just-so-many legs which move in just-such-and-such a pattern; one sees its color and the other observes the sweetish fetor of its green excrement. (Do you deign to know which child sees which?) But the neuro-chemical processes in each child's brain are strikingly different from each other; hence, upon writing their poem, each child invites the reader into strikingly different worlds.

But of even greater importance than that, is that the "worlds" described in their haiku poetry were worlds within themselves and not the physical world about us all. They were both existing in the physical world, but what they produced showed us what they saw within their individual brains. We do not "read" the physical world through their poems, but we share the vision that occurred within them on a neuro-physical level.

Applying this idea to my poem, "Here Lies the Tree, Slain.", what I wrote began as a vision I had while recuperating from the last of a series of painful surgeries. Lying in a troubled rest in the sweet arms of a morphine IV drip and avoiding any possible movement, I saw within my mind's eye a dark green and decayed trunk of fallen oak, bucked into pieces which were never moved but left to the gradual coverings of grasses and mosses. Rotting in the cold, spring thaw, these rounds of wood produced a powerful odor of decay and in spirit I saw that they were emblematic of humanity's lust to control others through the Law. How so? Just think back to that First Tree which allowed so much fruitless death to devastate mankind -- and yet in my vision as I saw this vision, I sensed within me (within the Universe as well) a splendid delight and glorious ecstasy to see that this Tree had been felled so long ago -- and felled not by the Hand of a Loving God, but by the hand of man. Well, by the hand of that Feller, anyway -- the Everlasting Man. And as the Tree had once stood for "Right and Wrong in the Hand of Man", it now rests, laying its lies once and forever under the Grace and Truth of a new and greater Tree.

So take a moment, find your comfortably soft theater seat, and share my world.

Emil

Distance is No Longer Appealing

2009-11-17T12:48:00.000-08:00

How far away is God?

Basically -- as far as you want Him.

Christendom today is changing, or dying, whichever you prefer. As society changes, the face of the church inevitably, interrelatedly changes as well. And one of the changes taking place today in the lives of thousands of spiritually hungry people is a an increasing desire to know God more personally, more intimately. In theology it's called the "Immanent God" -- God within the universe instead -- instead of the "Transcendent God" or God Who is Wholly Apart from human experience.

In the opening scene of one of the movie versions of Fiddler On the Roof, the townspeople living in an isolated region of Tsarist Russia ask the village rabbi if there's a "blessing" for their much despised ruler. Thoughtfully the rabbi nods and says, "Yes -- God bless the Tsar, and keep him -- far, far from us…"

Similarly, many have desired to keep God "far, far from us." It's an ancient desire, but it's also characteristic of our culture up until Gen X rolled on to the scene. Centuries ago, the Bible tells us, that when Moses led the children of Israel out of bondage in Egypt, taking them into the Wilderness, He did so in order to create in them a "nation of priests". His intent (never fulfilled) was for His people to be the means whereby the entire world would come to know their Creator. (In a way, this actually did happen, because Jesus came from the Israelite nation, and He's the One Who has "shown us the Father.")

But at the foot of Mt. Sinai, as God prepared for this ultimate "close encounter", the mountain shook and clouds covered its peak -- thunder and bolts of lightening frighteningly visible to the masses below. (Don't ask me why God didn't represent Himself in kinder, gentler terms -- maybe causing a Rift between this physical universe and Eternity kicks up a little dust along the way… how would I know?) But the people were scared and ran away from the mountain as far and fast as they could. Instead of coming closer to God, they pleaded for Moses to climb the mountain and represent them before God.

It's wise to be scared of getting too close to God. In the New Testament book of Hebrews, it reads that "it's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God". It's like Jesus said, in the Gospel of John (chapter three), that just because Jesus came bringing the Light of God into the darkness of this world, didn't mean everyone cheered! After all, if a person's lifestyle contains works of darkness, who wants light? As John recorded, "the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness more than they loved the Light, because their deeds were wicked. For every wrongdoer hates the light, and does not come to the light, for fear his actions should be exposed and condemned." [Jn 3.19f]

In the last century, America had at least a "comfortable" relationship with God. People went to church, they plunked offerings into the plate, they took their children to Sunday School or catechism… After all -- doesn’t the Good Book says that "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing"? God had been relegated into a comfortable slot -- basically, Sunday at 11 A.M. And come Monday morning, people could indulge in dishonesty in their businesses, the pursuit of greed, the prolongation of racial discrimination, the perpetuation of dysfunctional family systems based on ancient rituals of sexual bias… (No, no… don't want to get too close to God, oh, no…)

In the '60s and '70s, things began to shift. Typically, these changes affected Christiandom with the speed of a melting glacier. But by the '80s, people had begun talking seriously about the "Post-Christian Age". And the most powerful blow had come, not from "communism" or "libertarianism", but from Christians themselves.

The Charismatic revival begun in the early '60s. More than just another theological fad (like the "death of God" in 1966, as on the infamous Times cover), this spiritual Movement swept tens of thousands into its wake, shaking entire denominations and shifting multitudes out of their shallow, religious rituals into a hungry search for more of God.

Out of this "terrible" Movement came many things that upset the religious status quo -- things like "contemporary worship" (and an almost total disregard for the beloved hymns of the Victorian Age), "home groups" (especially for those who were rejected by their familiar congregations due to their "Pentecostal" tendencies), "signs and wonders" (roundly rejected by most churches as having ceased 2,000 years ago with the death of the Last Apostle.) Many Christians stood in oppostition, staunchly satisfied with their conservative position that this Movement had to be stopped.

Until today. For the last thirty years now, there's been a hugely growing group of spiritually hungry people wanting more and more and more of God. With it has come a shift -- a continental divide if you will -- from the "Transcendent God" to the God Who is With Us… the God Who Makes Himself Known… the God Who is One With His People.

Oh -- not that God isn't still "bigger" than His Creation or "unknowable" to the human intellect. Sure, He's still Transcendent -- but that doesn't amount to more than a hill of beans to those people who have come to know Him personally, those who have passed from mere religion and superficial ceremonies, to a living, day-by-day, moment-by-moment Walk with Him in the Spirit.

Still, there's no question, though, that this Movement -- from Transcendence to Immanence -- represents a serious threat.

A serious threat, at least, to those who have reasons to not get too close… to the Living God.

Emil & Shell Swift

KingdomScribes.net

KingdomScribes

All I Ask is 4 U 2 Be Perfect...

Ollie, Ollie Oxen Free!

God Offers Us Rest — But Where is It?

Is Hell Now Welcoming Usama bin Laden?

The Resurrected Soul...

God is Usually NOT Subtle...

Who Defines “Apostolic Ministry” for Today?

Building the Church According to WHAT Pattern?

The Correlation Between True Apostleship and NY Bologna

Show Me a Penny & I'll Show You the Kingdom of God

Jesus - Are You Sure He's "Alive & Well"?

Whoever's in Charge of Your Church Should be Fired!

Boy -- Do I Hate Working with Concrete...

Ever Since My Misspent Youth. . .

When Do You Know it's "Church"?

Dialogue, Diaprax & the Death of Christendom

Related articles by Zemanta

Yes Virginia—There IS an Easter Bunny!

Are You Still—Whatever?

Related articles by Zemanta

Does Everything, Always, Have to Come Down to Works?

Fantasy Sells -- But, in the Church?

The Believer's Case for Homosexual Marriage

Want to Go to Heaven? Just Don't Go to Church...

New Year, New Decade -- New Focus!

Two Trees for the Christmas Holiday

Here Lies the Tree, Slain.

Can a Poem be Read Without a Jug of Wine at Hand?

Distance is No Longer Appealing