KingdomScribes

God Doesn't Love Alone

2013-01-20T17:57:00.000-08:00

God is the least arrogant Entity in the universe (or out of it.) Some people foolishly imagine He needs the praises of people to make Him feel like Big Stuff. He IS Big Stuff and that's a fact and of no significance whatever to Him or anyone.

God doesn't need people's praise and He doesn't need people's love. He is Love and He invites people to share in Him, in His nature — in His Love. But He no more "needs" love than the ocean needs seawater.

In their misunderstanding of God, many people also think He's basically in charge of everything and doesn't really "need" any of us. Actually, quite a few people don't bother to pray (until they're in serious trouble or pain) because they think, "If God's already watching out for everybody, then I don't need to pray for them. After all, God's the One Who's the "do-er" or "act-or"; He's the One Who accomplishes miracles for people — not me; and, besides, He knows best… So it's silly for me to even pray."

But the apostle Peter wrote (2,000 years ago) that we are participants in God's divine nature — and God's nature is Love. When we pray, we are participating in God's nature (in His Spirit) which is Love and therefore we're loving others. (That's what God does; i.e., that's what we do.)

"Love" is not a feeling; it's not an emotion, nor is it affection; Love is action. Love is not "feeling nice" or "warm" towards another — love is acting in kindness to another (especially when they least deserve it); Love is being humble and patient with another (especially in the face of another's silly pride); Love is refusing to be offended by another, choosing to praise others instead of one's own self, being happy when the truth wins out and refusing to keep track of how many times someone's "done me wrong" (and refusing to write songs about it either…) These are actions, not feelings — and Love is an action.

When we come face to face with a problem in the world — a neighbor whose daughter has just died, a friend whose husband has just been jailed, a fellow student whose only car has broken down or a client whose family is living under the fear of death from local drug-lords — when we see the brokenness in the lives and hearts of those around us, being sharers in God's divine nature of Love does not allow us to casually gesture Heavenward as we say, "Sure glad You got this one, Big Guy!" As participants in His nature, our prayers for their healing, their restoration, their well-being are God's Hands at work in their lives. God doesn't Love alone.

God loves through us — and when we back off from loving those who desperately need God's powerful, healing Love, God stands in silence, weeping because of His ready Providence going wasted in our useless hands. Many times we can (must) love in action and not merely in word; but then there are those situations that are so beyond our being able act that we see the only help is simply a miracle — and these are the times when we can rightfully and divinely Partner with His Love in prayer, interceding for those miracles to break into the dark prisons of some people's lives. God doesn't Love alone.

As John the Beloved says, "Let us Love one another, just like Jesus Loved us — laying our very lives down for one another."

Emil & Shell Swift
www.FaceBook.com/ShabbatAnt

Did Jesus Die to Appease His Father's Wrath?

2012-07-31T03:23:00.000-07:00

No. Throughout the world and in all seasons of time, indigenous religions usually demanded blood sacrifices. Civilizations in Asia, Africa, Europe, South America or any other place, have often practiced blood sacrifices.

As I've read about sacrifices throughout the world, the primary attitude toward blood sacrifices is that the god or gods to whom such sacrifice was made needed to be appeased. [pacified or placated] To appease a god, gifts were offered. Fruits and grain might be offered; sheep, goats or cattle; gold, silver, jewels, precious artifacts — but throughout all the world, people knew that the Greatest Gift was the life of a human being. Or (such as in the Aztec and Mayan cultures) thousands of human beings including (especially) children who were an even more highly regarded sacrifice because of their being considered "pure".

As we read in the Bible of Jesus' death on a cross, many people casually assert that this human sacrifice actually "appeased" God's Wrath — that it pacified or placated an angry God. This idea is drawn from the general understanding (described above) as placating an angry god. But "appeasement" had nothing to do with Jesus' death on a cross.

People sometimes quip, "Well, you gotta go sometime!", referring to the reality that all human beings eventually will die. But in fact, Jesus — human being that he was — would not ever have had to die. Death, according to Scripture, is the natural consequence of sin. The apostle Paul described this when he wrote, "The wages of sin is death." Of course, "wages" are a payment made by an employer to an employee, but figuratively, "wages" refer to the result or effect of doing something considered wrong.

In respect to death, "wages" are the natural consequences of sin… and the natural consequence of sin is death. Here's a metaphor that can help to clarify this: Someone accidentally grabs a bottle of liquid snail and slug killer, thinking it's water, and after one, thirsty swallow, drops the bottle, grabs his throat as he screams, falls down to the floor and dies. Or someone drives recklessly in city traffic, runs a red light, crashes into a semi truck and trailer, and dies when the steering wheel crushes his chest.

Neither of these deaths result from the desire of an angry god for bloody gifts to appease him. Both deaths are simply the natural consequences of inattention and foolishness.

In this sense, human death is simply the result of human sin. When a human sins, he or she will eventually die. And once dead, he or she stays dead — no person can resurrect their corpse. Dead is dead. But this is not the case with Jesus.

Jesus, according to the Scriptures, was God Himself (Christ) Who chose to humble Himself and become a human in order to work out a plan whereby no human being has to ever die and stay dead. It was a simple plan: Since Jesus never sinned, he never had to die. As death is the consequence of sin, and he had no sin, then he didn't have to die.

But he chose to die anyway, and he did so because he was the only human being who could die — and be resurrected or brought back to life. Having died once, he never had to die again.

Jesus didn't choose to die in order to placate his Angry Father. He died in order to work out an "escape plan" for every person throughout the entire history of the earth — providing us with a means of conveying (by faith in his death for us), the grace of God into our lives.

How is it, though, that Jesus' death (and resurrection) can work out to a person's benefit. Certainly it makes sense that (being without sin) death had no hold on him — having never sinned, he didn't have to suffer the consequences of sin. But Jesus' resurrection doesn't translate into my death or yours. We've still sinned and so the consequences are still hanging over our heads…

Here's how Jesus' death and resurrection become beneficial to you or me. When a person trusts that Jesus' death on the Cross somehow saves him/her from "the wages of sin" (death), then God performs a supernatural act: He unites that person with Jesus.

Unites. Fully, completely makes the sinner and the Son of God one. The Bible describes this over and over using phrases like "being united with Christ" and "one with Christ" and "immersed in Christ", "saturated with Christ"…

Let's see how this plays out: a person trusts that what God has done to deliver him/her from death is, in fact, effective and will actually happen; God unites that person with Jesus, making them One; then everything that is Jesus' is now theirs.

The apostle Paul explains that (once we're made One with Christ) when Jesus died on the Cross — we died too. In a sense, it's like getting into a car with someone. Once you're "united" with the driver by sitting in the same car, if that driver goes to Cleveland, guess where you go? If that driver pulls into a gas station, you pull into the gas station as well. And if that driver loses control and accidentally drives over a 1,000 foot cliff and the car explodes — when the driver dies, you die also.

When God supernaturally makes us One with Jesus, it unites us with his death, with his burial, and with his resurrection into eternal life. This is a spiritual union meaning that the essence of who we are has already passed the challenge of death and is even now "sitting with Christ in the heavens". Jesus' victory over sin and death is now our victory over sin and death.

This — this union with Jesus Christ — is what it means to "be saved". It has nothing to do with "going to church" or "obeying God" or "spiritually discipling ourselves"… "Being saved" only means that if trust Jesus' to be able to do what he set out to do on the Cross — to deliver you from sin and death — then God "makes it so".

When one considers this wonderful act of Love — dying in order for us to also die to sin and be raised into Eternal Life — when one considers this act of Love, there's absolutely no way one can twist it into some sort of sacrifice intended to appease a blood-thirsty god. To consider the two different perspectives to be the "same" is blasphemous.

For those of you for whom this understanding of what Jesus' death on the Cross has gained for us is a new perspective, mull it over for awhile. Consider how deeply God has loved us to provide this means of deliverance from sin and death. Read some of the Bible passages about being "in Christ" or "with Christ", and consider what our union with Him means to us — today and forever.

And the next time you hear someone talking trash about a "blood-thirsty god", see if you can share this different perspective — and doing so in a manner that's pure and gentle, respectful, peaceable, and reasonable…

Given the grace to share this Good News ("gospel") about Jesus, perhaps yet another person will trust God to do the same in their lives. You see, "evangelizing" doesn't mean "proselyting" or talking someone into going to church… "Evangelizing" means sharing the message that Jesus has already provided Life, abundant Life, no one has to do anything to "earn" it as Jesus has "earned" it for us.

All a person needs to know in order to become One with Jesus is (1) that God exists, and (2) that He rewards anyone who trusts in Him with Life — and that more abundantly!

Emil and Shell Swift

Dodging Answers, Not Questions…

2012-07-24T16:45:00.001-07:00

distractions and arguments (Photo credit: Will Lion)

Noam Chomsky (some grandaddy in linguistics) created a term — "Universal Grammar" — and it's rumored he uses it every time he speaks… Yet he apparently never seems to pin down what, precisely, it means… so his detractors often describe "Universal Grammar" as "whatever Chomsky needs it to be in a given presentation."

It's hard to critique a fellow linguistic's theory if it's never stated clearly enough to evaluate…

Not just linguists, but virtually everybody can be critiqued for holding to ideas (and biases) which are so clearly NOT explained (!) that they can't be refuted! In the end, again, the only resolution is fisticuffs… ("Those pesky American colonials — so aggressive…")

I've also been accused of spouting some theory or idea about spiritual things or even the Bible, while remaining so general about it that it can't be refuted. Which is entirely true. Focusing on what I dodge a little more clearly — I don't dodge anyone's questions… I dodge answering them.

This irritating pattern comes to me in part from the Gospels in general and Jesus in particular. He was also awfully irritating to the people in His day. Read through the Gospels some time, and note how many times someone either asked Him a question or made some statement which Jesus then ignored only to answer to something (apparently) unrelated.

When John the Baptist,for example, thrown into Herod's dungeons, heard rumors about the miracles of Christ, he sent two of his disciples and asked Him, "Are you the promised Messiah, or do we look for another?"

Notice Jesus doesn't answer their question. Instead He answers, "Go and declare to John those things which you both do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them."

Any reader today might assume that this was some sort of answer which would satisfy John — but John already knew Jesus was doing these things. He didn't need to be told Jesus was going around doing mighty works of grace. John's problem was that (in his theology) when the Messiah came, He'd destroy all the kingdoms of the earth and bring all nations and peoples into Judgment. The "Messiah" was coming to bring judgment ("the axe is already laid at the foot of the tree — beware!"), not grace.

That's why he sent his disciples to ask their question which Jesus didn't answer. He didn't ignore the question — He did hear it and respond to it… but He just didn't answer it.

Quite a few times Jesus didn't some much "dodge the question" but dodged answering the question which had been asked.

IMAO, there's a practical reason for this pattern of teaching which I call "Question & not-Answer" ("Q&amp;amp;n-A"?) Jesus generally heard the question and gave an "answer" which didn't seem to have anything to do with the question… but in fact, did. Jesus often used the Question and not-Answer method to trick people into reflecting on these spiritual realities.

Had Jesus answered the questions people asked — and answered them as they asked them — He would have been validating the "degree" of spiritual understanding that had precipitated the question in the first place. Sort of like the common joke where you walk up to a man and ask, "Have you quit beating your wife yet?"

Apart from slapping him in an aggressive, faux-Zen manner, neither "yes" or "no" can truly answer the question, because the question itself is wrapped around a spiritual misunderstanding. So to "answer" the question, Jesus would have to "shift its ground" — He'd have to offer an interpretation which would demand they come to a deeper understanding in the spirit before it "made sense".

John asks, "Are you the promised Messiah?" and Jesus says, "Look at the miraculous works of the Kingdom of Heaven happening around Me!" His answer made sense only if John allowed his theology to be changed.

If John understood, spiritually, he would have known that the Messiah had come, it was Jesus but the Messiah had not come in the manner John had expected.

Even today, Jesus' answers are often answered only within a person's mind after it's renewed by the Spirit. We all cry out at times, asking or even pleading with Jesus to explain some trouble, some trial, (or even some theological hiccup) with which we're struggling — and we want to understand, "Why?" But rarely does one hear any sort of "straight answer" in the Spirit…

But the Answer God does give to us — in our spirits — we eventually recognize, and with that "recognition", our minds are renewed yet again… His Answer doesn't satisfy our curiosity — it fulfills our spirits and transforms us again and again ("as from glory to glory") into the likeness of His Dear Son, Jesus.

Emil & Shell Swift

BREAKING GOD'S COMMANDMENTS IS NOT SIN

2012-04-23T05:17:00.002-07:00

Typically, if you ask a person what sin is, they'll say something like "disobeying God" or "breaking one of Moses' Ten Commandments". Maybe they'll just say sin is "doing something wrong".

But that's not what sin is. People who think this way are like those who say that a corpse in the morgue died from "heart failure".

Which doesn't say much because every person who dies, does so from the heart stopping — which is "heart failure". But what caused the heart to stop? Was it cancer or cirrhosis of the liver, a stab wound or an unexpected shock? Maybe they got shot...?

When anything like this happens to a person you don't say they died of heart failure... You say they died from being shot.

The same is true of sin. The confusion comes from misinterpreting which is the Cause and which is the Result: People aren't in sin because they break God's Law — they break God's Law because they're in sin.

In the Bible, Romans 4.8 is very interesting. It reads, "Happy is the man against whom no sin is recorded by the Lord."

Understanding this will clarify what sin is. Isn't it strange that there are at least some people (who were sinners), but against whom God drops all charges of breaking His Law? Don't you want to be that person?

If you glance back over the opening verses of Rom. 4, you'll see the issue at hand isn't obedience or disobedience; it's not "breaking" or "not-breaking" God's Law. Instead the issue is whether a person trusts God to effectually deliver them from their sin.

An example is made of Father Abraham who lived more than 3,000 years ago. In fact, when someone talks about obeying "the Law of God", Abraham lived so long ago he lived before the Law was even written. Obviously, he couldn't "break" the Law since it didn't even exist.

What is written about Abraham, though, is that Abraham "trusted in God, and it was put to his account as righteousness."

"Righteousness" (or, loosely, godlikeness) comes from one trusting and having confidence in God. Will I die, never to live again? Will sin remain an unconquerable Master over all my earthly life? Will I live in spiritual solitude and darkness, hopelessly alone in my earthly anxieties — or can I confidently trust God Who has promised to deliver me from all these things, lifting me above darkness and death into an eternal light? "Can I trust God?" and something within me whispers, then shouts, "Yes! I trust God to honor His promises of Life, and Life more abundantly — here and not only after this body dies!"

So, in light of this, what is sin? Breaking God's Commandments?

Not at all. Sin is not trusting God to keep His Promises of deliverance and Life.

Therefore, when a person "repents of sin", they're not "promising they'll never break His Commandments again"; repentance from sin means that — having heard the Promises of God to successfully deliver us from spiritual death into eternal Life — that a person believes God is capable and able to be trusted to do just that.

Which is why it says of Abraham (the spiritual Father of our Faith), "What does Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and that trust was regarded by God to be His approval of Abraham.” [Rom 4.3]

Emil & Shell Swift

Beware of By-Path Meadow…

2012-03-27T03:44:00.000-07:00

In the spiritual classic, Pilgrim's Progress, there's a section in which those who are traveling to the Celestial City (the place in which those who desire can live eternally in the Presence of God) spy a meadow which ran alongside of the path they followed. Crossing a fence over a stile (a little wooden step provided for that purpose), they discovered to their delight a much greater comfort to their tired feet by walking in the grassy meadow.

In the story, when night fell, water rose as if they were in a swamp and they couldn't find their way through the darkness back to solid footing on the main path. They realized their danger in having been tricked into crossing the stile leading into the grassy meadow. They no longer rested fearlessly in the safety of the main path (the Narrow Road of Salvation) and now feared for their lives.

Old Stile (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In my childhood, pastors and Sunday school teachers taught us that the Narrow Path (the Safe Path) consisted of our denomination, its teachings (doctrines) and the congregational leaders such as pastor, deacons, and Sunday school teachers who led the church. Simply put, "Leaving the Path" consisted of leaving the local church and the spiritual oversight of its leaders.

But as years have passed and I've been one of those "spiritual leaders", it's finally come clear to me that entrusting one's spiritual life into the hands of local church leaders is in fact crossing over the stile into the more comfortable meadows. It's the exact reverse of that in which I'd been so carefully indoctrinated.

What, then, is the "Narrow Road" which I'd left by adhering closely to a church organization?

The Narrow Road is the road which Jesus walks.

Not to get too woo-woo and out in the ozone here, but you can either follow organizations and theological systems which are merely human in origin, or you can walk with Jesus. Having been raised from the dead, He's alive, and in His Spirit, He presents Himself to any person who desires Him. He's not far and He's not "hard to find" because He's closer to you or I than our own thoughts. Any person who's heard of Jesus' working out our deliverance from sin and death and has confidence that what He's done is totally effective, has the opportunity to walk and (in our spirits) "talk" with Him — and THAT'S the "Narrow Path".

Pastors, church leaders and teachers will argue that no one can follow Jesus "on their own". Every person who wants to live in this world today according to the wisdom and guidance of Jesus can only do so by following the wisdom and guidance of church leaders. (It's to their own benefit to teach this — it keeps the church full, volunteers available and tithes coming in.) But this begs the question: Whose wisdom and guidance do you want to follow? Jesus'? Or self-righteous religious leaders? Even if you know a religious leader who's humble and sweet and wise — they still fall short of being as wise and safe as following Jesus Himself.

That grassy meadow in Pilgrim's Progress is called, "By-Path Meadow". The real "by-path" which threatens to derail a Christian is the "easier" and "softer" path of following human advisors. Through the printed Word of God, and the Living Word of God (not the same thing, BTW), a person faces a harder, more difficult Path.

After all — you can look at a pastor and tell her a little white lie. "How did you do this year, Mr. Smith, on truthfully reporting your income to the IRS?" [Oh! Unexpected question! Shall I be honest here and tell Pastor that I didn't underreport as badly as I usually do? And face her disapproval?] Carefully making sure your eyes give nothing away, you respond, "It was a lot easier this year, now that I learned that cheating is ridiculous since God is the Source of all my provision anyway. Why cheat when I know God's covering all that my family and I need?" [And you think to yourself how you slid through that little inquisition without revealing that you'd cheated this year just like before, and didn't even actually lie to the Pastor in the process…]

Now, try that with Jesus. Try stretching the truth with Someone Who lives inside you. Try pretending that you're more spiritually mature than in fact you really are, with the Guy Who never sleeps sitting inside, patiently waiting for you to quit deceiving yourself.

The "Narrow Path" isn't following and satisfying merely human leadership. The "Narrow Path" isn't even following and obeying the demands of the church's Canon of Rules of Membership (don't smoke, don't chew, and don't go with girls who do…)

The Narrow Path that leads to the Celestial City is a path of peace and no struggle — but requires releasing everything within that is self-focused and selfish, in order to allow Jesus to truly lead the Way. The Bible calls this "dying to self" but in a weird way typical of spiritual Truth, it's only when we die to our self-focused and selfish lives that we begin to live truly enjoyable lives.

Jesus used a farming illustration: two oxen plowing a field, side by side. To both, a farmer had tied one plow — but not to the ox on the left and the ox on the right. No — he'd placed a wooden beam (a yoke) carved to fit comfortably over the necks of these two, powerful oxen, and the ropes went from the plow to the yoke. One of the oxen was a huge brute — strong and well-experienced, knowing exactly what to do in order to produce straight furrows. The ox paired with him was smaller, younger, and ignorant — having no idea how to pull a plow straight.

Jesus is saying that He'll walk alongside of us in union to us or "yoked". With His Strength and His wisdom, we successfully face the unfamiliar challenge of "plowing" the "spiritual fields" of our lives in order to produce a harvest of Joy. When we trust Him, He becomes not only the Power in our lives (the huge ox pulling the real weight of the plow), but He (step-by-step) leads us into "cutting straight furrows" — making the day-by-day decisions in our lives that lead us without fail into satisfaction, peace and joy.

As Pilgrim's Progress warns, "Beware of By-Path Meadow" — beware of easily and comfortably following merely human religious leaders. Choose instead to awaken to the close Presence of Jesus Christ in your life, following His never-failing lead into life — and that life, more abundantly.

Emil & Shell

www.KingdomScribe.net

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

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

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

Our 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

A 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 back in May, 2012, 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

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

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 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 "buiried" 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" slowing 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

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

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

SHORT 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

KingdomScribes

God Doesn't Love Alone

Did Jesus Die to Appease His Father's Wrath?

Dodging Answers, Not Questions…

BREAKING GOD'S COMMANDMENTS IS NOT SIN

Beware of By-Path Meadow…

Related articles

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?

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