Church Conflict

This may be a stretch. While evaluating strategies for dealing with church conflict, several class groups dealt with personnel issues, work/life balance for staff and volunteers, shared leadership and other areas for potential conflict. Jean Vanier in a few speeches describes that if we live in community, we live in conflict for various reasons. Others describe that conflict is inevitable and necessary for personal and community maturity.

I was struck by what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5. The earthly household of the tabernacle (epigeious...oikia tou skenous) will be battered by storms and troubles. But have no fear, He is preparing a heavenly household that is eternal. Our earthly households may split and divide. There may be struggles as we figure out how to love God and love our families and neighbors, balancing the time (does God ask us to punish our families for the kingdom?). We may judge others because our desires aren't being met. Differing values clash. We don't allow weaknesses; we need strengths to bring glory to God. We succumb to caring about ourselves (recognition, respect, security, right-ness) rather than caring for others. We have broken relationships, broken trusts, broken spirits through false perspectives of competition. We respond to unmet expectations in our habitual ways because our spirits haven't been fully transformed and filled with His spirit--revealing love, joy, peace, patience...We will work hard and endlessly at reconciliation and restoration, making peace within our walls. We groan. We are burdened. We would rather be with Him than away from Him. "So make it our goal to please Him...All this is from God who reconciled us to Him through Christ and gave us a ministry of reconciliation."

Sande and Van Yperen exhort us to be peacemakers, not peacekeepers. Peace making is hard work. Peacekeeping can be as easy as running away to a different church. Not what Christ has called us to do.

Driven Mad By Grace

A lot of times we're in a rut, and we follow a path we've taken before, or others have taken. Often that path is one in which we think everyone else acts like us, thinks like us, decides like us.

Recently, I watched a show in which the actor Ethan Hawke researched Shakespeare's MacBeth (superstitiously called the Scottish Play) as if he was preparing for the role. He learned about the real, historic MacBeth. He learned from others' portrayals of the character. He wondered if MacBeth was changed by the prophetic words of the witches, and the urging of his wife, or did their words explode the ambitious fire within him. He talked with people who have worked with murderers to understand their psyche. Unfortunately, he didn't question the assumption that MacBeth may not have been ambitious at the start of the play and was bothered by committing murders of his king and friends. Shakespeare didn't write with emoticons; written words of regret could be said sincerely or sarcastically depending on the context. All of the experts talked about MacBeth as if he had never killed anyone before. I would've screamed at the TV if I thought they would have heard me, "What are you saying? He was a general. He's killed people on the battlefield. He was rewarded for his excessive boldness, recklessness perhaps, and courage. He was surprised that he was given another title and land by chance (i.e. the coincidence of his battlefield success and the betrayal of the king by another lord). It was common in those times to gain territory and power through murder and conquest. The murderers of the thane of Cawdor seemed not to go mad. MacBeth's actions were 'normal'. Now re-read the play, you morons!"

"If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me," MacBeth says, "without my stir." MacBeth didn't think he deserved any newfound wealth, title or fame without earning it.

If you think you need to earn your rewards, you will be driven mad by grace.

Throughout scripture, God continues to love even though we do not love Him back. "Though I am the least deserving of all God's people, he graciously gave me the privilege of telling the Gentiles about the endless treasures available to them in Christ" (Ephesians 3.8 NLT).  "We are not commending ourselves to you again, but giving you an opportunity to be proud of us, so that you may have a reply for those who take pride in [titles, wealth, appearance, etc.] rather than in the heart. For if we are out of our mind, it is for God..." (2 Corinthians 5.12-13 HCSB).

Paul's actions make no sense to the Corinthians or to anyone really. We analyze what he does in view of what we would do given our worldview, experience and the 'success gurus' of our culture. Unfortunately, they have false assumptions. They assume we have to earn love. We never earn love, not the love of God, our spouses, our kids... We can definitely kill love, but we do not deserve the love except that we are. Because we are, we get love. We are not worthy in the sense that we earned it. We exist, therefore God loves us, desires more of us, challenges us, spurs us on, rejoices over us...and so on.

On God's Side

Yesterday I heard Jim Wallis and two others (one being a rabbi) talk about religion and society's problems, including politics. They discussed how we need to work for the common good.

Jim Wallis, author of the recent book On God's Side, reminded us that Lincoln was more concerned about discerning what God was doing and being on His side, than with invoking God to be on our side. At the end one of the other panelists promised that when we stand up for justice, God's light will shine and we'll be victorious. He cited a recent example where a voter ID law was defeated. However, he didn't mention that, in the same state, a marriage amendment was defeated that would have defined it as between a man and a woman, despite a large outcry from the religious community.

I think Jim Wallis has provided the right exhortation. We need to find where God's light is shining and go stand in it. Instead we stand on our issues and ask God's light and power to illuminate our efforts. Are we on God's side or are we asking Him to be on our side? We need to walk humbly with our God, and make sure we know His heart and His thoughts rather than project onto Him our thoughts and our feelings.

Do We Know...?

Quite a few years ago, Group (the creators of teen curriculum) challenged youth leaders and youth with a response to WWJD: "DWKJWETKWHWD?"*

I was reminded of this recently when I read Proverbs 6 and the six things God hates, no seven things He detests? Can you guess what they are? Take a minute to list what you think they are based on what you know of scripture and what you've read in the popular religious press.**

At the same time, our men's group was challenged by the book we're reading. We had to think about whether we knew God like He knows us. There are many times when God surprises us in life and in scripture. Like where did Jonah get the idea that God would be merciful toward other people outside of Israel? How do we reconcile Christ's words that we should hate our parents, our wives and children and everyone else (Luke 14.26ff) with the chastisement of religious leaders who allowed payments to the Temple that should have gone to help aging parents, and such legal transgressions should be punishable by death (Matthew 15.3-9)? Are there deeper thoughts and a deeper sense of God's heart that we have trouble understanding so we rely on the simplistic and complex rules because we have trouble discerning the Spirit's guidance?

 "We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull...only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit...And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into His likeness with ever-increasing glory..." (2 Corinthian 4.13-18 NIV). Through the Spirit we have a chance to know the heart and thoughts of God.

Psalm 139 reversed and paraphrased

O Lord, I have searched for You
And I know You.
I know when You are still and when You are taking action.
I perceive Your thoughts.
I discern when You are moving forward and I need to follow
And when You are resting, and I should be still.
I am familiar with all Your ways,
And I know when good things and good words are coming from You and not from our own desires.
Before You speak, I know what You're going to say to me and others, O Lord.

Oh, that I would see when You make the path before me
And I would see how You've cleaned up the mess behind me.
I can feel Your hand of blessing on me
When I'm not creating You in my own image
By focusing on my desires, demands, judgments and vengeance.
You surprise me with creative and differing responses to situations that seem the same.
Oh, that I would stay in touch with Your Spirit.

You can be known when I'm on a spiritual retreat, and when I'm in work doldrums.
You can be known when I'm in my comfortable home
And when I'm in unfamiliar neighborhoods and lands.
When I stop blabbing on about my needs, and others' too, I listen and receive Your guidance.
I receive Your strength throughout the day so I don't weary.

Even in the darkest troubles and among the most unloved people, I see Your light.
No one made You and we cannot understand everything about You.
Yet we are called to know You and become like You, holy and perfect.
We are called to love as you love the weak, marginalized...the least, last and lost...
Every moment we are to reflect Your image.
If I don't love, You will find someone to reach out a caring hand, a soft word, a correcting nudge.

How precious are Your thoughts and Your heart!
They are too numerous to count and too wonderful to figure out logically.

I search for You, O God, to know Your heart and know Your thoughts.
Point out where I've gotten it wrong, but gently correct me,
And put me on the right path of following You and being like You.

*Do We Know Jesus Well Enough To Know What He Would Do?
** pride, lying to others, injustice and legal theft (see Dt. 19.10 and Jas. 5.1-6), wanting to take revenge, lack of self-control, gossip and slander, creating division among the faithful community.

Zealot Part 2

More questions for Reza Aslan:

What made the followers of Y'shua of Nazareth so different from the followers of Judas the Galilean, Menahem, Simon son of Giora, Simon son of Kochba and the rest of the revolutionary messiahs, that they would remain loyal to Y'shua's "cause" after his death, for decades and centuries?

If the gospels contain so much fiction, why did people believe it? (I know, I asked this before, but it seems so relevant.)

How could the gospel writers, and a presumed author of a supposed Q document, have adopted the imagery of the Son of Man from 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra (apocryphal works) when they were written decades after the gospels? Isn't more likely 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra adopted the imagery from the gospels? After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, the Jewish faith practices were being revised in order to adapt to the inability of Temple sacrifices and making the synagogues more central to the practice of the faith. Couldn't it be that their understanding of the messiah, Son of God and Son of Man also was modified in response to the Temple destruction? Also, most of Paul's writings were done before the Temple destruction. There are many scholars who think even the Revelation of John was written before the Temple destruction, because it refers to measuring the Temple (Revelation 11.1ff) and Jerusalem's destruction.

Why would the early followers of Y'shua of Nazareth continue preaching to the Jews primarily (Acts 11.19) if they couldn't back up their messianic claims scripturally, as Aslan claims, and the Jews would laughed them out of the synagogues? They wouldn't have been very successful. Having sold all of their possessions (Acts 4.32ff). Even the most inept CEO's and missionaries wouldn't continue with the same strategy for decades if their revenue stream dried up.

Are you sure the scriptures don't talk about a resurrected Messiah? Even the Talmud (rabbinical teachings) equate some figurative passages with the Messiah, perhaps not unlike Y'shua walking with two disciples to Emmaus: 'Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Isaac, "Have you heard when Bar Naphle (son of the fallen) will come?" He said to him, "Who is Bar Naphle?" He answered, "The Messiah." The other asked, "Do you call the Messiah Bar Naphle?" He replied, "I do because it is written, 'In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen' (Amos 9.11)." (Sanh. 96b) Similar Talmudic interpretations of the name of the Messiah occur regarding Genesis 49.10 (Shiloh), Psalm 72.17 (Jinnon), Jeremiah 41.13 (Chaninah), Lamentations 1.16 (Menachem), Isaiah 53.4 (leprous - stricken), Numbers 24.17 (Star - kochab thus messianic attributions were placed on Simon bar Kochba).

What droctinal difference separated the Jerusalem Jews and the Hellenistic Jews? It couldn't have been the resurrection. Look at Peter's and John's preaching in the Temple and before the Sanhedrin. Also it is acknowledged that Peter and John were uneducated (Acts 4.13) yet the Sanhedrin listened and Gamaliel cautioned the Sanhedrin not to oppose the movement because of its popularity (Acts 5.34-39).

They'll Know Us By Our T-Shirts

You've seen the signs and heard the rhetoric: "God hates..." Fill it in with your favorite enemy: homosexuals, Muslims, liberals, Republicans, gun-control freaks, environmentalists, polluters,... But does He?

You know the story of Jonah and his three-days in the belly of a fish. I bet you don't know the end of the story. Jonah makes a remarkable New Testament kind of statement for a Hebrew prophet. Paraphrasing him, he says, "I knew God that You would not destroy my enemy, the people that I hate, if they repented. I knew You were a God who cared for all people, not just us, your favorite ones. That's why I ran away and tried to die in the storm. I wish You would change Your mind again, and destroy these...(faggots, ragheads, child-spoilers, Wall Street scammers...). I will sit here until I die in the hope that You will wipe them out."

The end of the story has God comparing Jonah's love for a leafy plant, which he didn't plant/water/tend, with the city's 120,000 people made in God's image. "Shouldn't I feel sorry for such a great city?" And that's the end. We are left to answer the question. It's like the implied question at the end of the Prodigal Son parable: "We had to celebrate this happy day. For your brother was dead and has come back to life! He was lost, but now he is found. Won't you join me in the celebration?"

Jonah in a pout would say, "No!" to both questions. Jonah in his head says, "Yes, I said You were merciful, compassionate, slow to anger...Of course, You would feel sorry for a great city. Of course, I should join in the celebration of my lost brother." But there is very little precedence for this compassion on an enemy of Israel. The Hebrews were the favored nation. God made a covenant with them, that if they honored Him and obeyed all would be well, that if they repented God would once again turn His face to them. Did this apply to the hated Assyrians (homosexuals, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, etc.)?

Christ teaches that it does. Paul teaches that it does. Jonah teaches that it does. The question--"shouldn't I feel sorry for such a great city?"--is probably not really meant to teach Jonah, or the Ninevites. It's meant for Israel to answer the question. It's meant for Christ's followers to answer the question. We are to be the royal priesthood, a holy nation. We are to be a light to the world, because He is compassionate, merciful and slow to anger. God says the others are in spiritual darkness (they don't know right from wrong, think wrong is right, don't know what they're doing). When they come into the light, God welcomes them like a prodigal son. Christ pleaded for them, "Father, forgive them for they don't know what they're doing."

"Because we understand our fearful responsibility to the Lord, we work hard to persuade others...If it seems we are crazy, it is to bring glory to God. If we are in our right minds, it is for your benefit...since we believe that Christ died for all...He died for everyone so that those who receive His new life will no longer live for themselves. Instead they will live for Christ, who died and was raised for them. So we have stopped evaluating others from a human point of view."

Another question God could ask us, at the end of the book of Jonah is: "Who should I hate and not give a second chance?"

"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" (I John 4.8)

Zealot?

Paul has been described as a person zealous about the Jewish religion, persecuting the sacrilegious and blaspheming sect of The Way (the early church) and turning that zeal instead towards sharing the gospel of Y'shua Meschach, when he would have, should have known. Reza Aslan has put forth a different picture of Y'shua in his latest book. It's an intriguing account of the first century life and political realities. However, it raises lots of questions:

How does Aslan's depiction of Jesus as a radical revolutionary in the ilk of the Maccabees get reconciled with the parables that Jesus teaches about the kingdom of God, like the Good Samaritan and the Return of the Prodigal Son?

Based on his lack of trust in the early church writings (epistles and gospels), how much evidence does he have for the other aspects of 1st century politics, including the career of Pontius Pilate? How many sources for each of his 'facts' are known and found reliable?

Especially if there are historic inaccuracies in the gospels (including Luke's), why did 1st century, 2nd century and 3rd century people, who'd know better, believe in and die for the faith and teachings found in those writings? What is it about this faith, easily disproved if Aslan and others are right, that thrived throughout persecution and charges of falsities, particularly in the 1st century when most people would have known someone who knew a person named in these writings or was in the same place as the events that occurred?

If Paul was a psychotic maniac personally creating the myth of Jesus' deity and resurrection, how would he have convinced so many throughout the Roman world, and particularly in Jerusalem among those who could refute his theological position?

Jesus hung out with sinners and tax collectors. One was his disciple (Levi called Matthew) and another became so (Zacchaeus), prominently named in the gospel accounts, and would have quickly been executed perhaps for their treason if it was found out they hung out with a known lestai (bandit, radical revolutionary intent on overthrowing Roman rule). He also dined with several Pharisees who may have had everything to lose if they provoked any suspicions among the Roman rulers. In an interview Aslan says that Pilate wouldn't have hesitated a bit to crucify anyone or 'slaughter them in their beds' when they 'disagreed in even the slightest of any of his decisions.'  Then there's the centurion or Roman officer or, as some think, an officer within Herod Antipas' army trained by the Imperial forces. How does Aslan's depiction square with the mention of these followers?

Why does a radical revolutionary send out his followers in pairs, without money or extra sandals (i.e. defenseless), seeking to stay in a household of peace (i.e. looking for a man of peace), and moving on if one is not found putting God's judgment on the village?

In an interview, Aslan said three things would be characteristic of the accounts of Jesus' life to make it more palatable to a Roman audience, which he claims is the target audience for the writings: downplay his Jewishness and make his teachings more universal; make him a little less revolutionary; and most importantly, remove all blame from Rome for Jesus' death. If Aslan found so much that doesn't square with what is supposedly known of those times, how did these accounts become so popular if they were so fictional? And not just fictional and worthy of discussion, but popular to instill dedication to the point of death? Any J.K. Rowling fans, Hunger Games Trilogy fans, da Vinci Code fans or conspiracists about JFK's assassination or 9/11 or the Illuminati or Federal Reserve brouhahas willing to die for some depictions found in their writings?

Social Science and Bible Merge

Recently I heard Dr. Henry Cloud speak at the Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit. He talked about failures putting us on a mental death spiral. At first we take the failure Personally. "I'm not good at this." We especially take it personally when others are critical of our performance whether they are customers, peers, family, or friends. Then we make the failure Pervasive. "I'm not good at anything." The failure then becomes Permanent. "I'll never be any good. There's no hope." He pointed out that this death spiral is the brain's reaction to a job loss, relationship loss, project catastrophe or some other misstep in an important arena of our lives.

It's easy to see this with regard to the exiles heading to Babylon in Daniel 1. During the long march to Babylon, I'm sure the soldiers were not cheering them on: "You can do this! You're almost there. Look at you go there, big guy!" Instead they were piling on the personal, pervasive and permanent misery. "You suck. Your army sucks. Your homes suck. Your mothers, wives, sisters and daughters are worthless too." They had nothing left and nothing to look forward to.

Dr. Cloud asserts that, according to studies, there are 3 things to do to get out of the death spiral. Acknowledge and Dispute the complaints and the negative thoughts (put them in perspective). Take control of the things you can do (make phone calls, improve reports and presentations, get some new skills). Stay connected with loved ones, especially with the One who loves you unconditionally.

In chapter 9, Daniel is studying Jeremiah's letter to the exiles, and it fits with the social scientific advice of getting out the Babylonian funk. Jeremiah writes in chapter 29: Do what you can--build homes, plant gardens. And you can do this--you will eat from the work of your hands; you don't need handouts. Marry and get your kids married. Build up some relationships. Put your talents to good use, toward the peace and prosperity of the land. God has not forsaken you. This too shall pass, in 70 years. Wrong was done, but this will expunge it for you. This is God's plan to protect you (see 29.11 one of the most quoted verses in the Bible). It'll be much worse for the others left behind....I know what the Babylonians told you as they marched you away, and don't listen to the false prophets. I will come to do good things for you, and bring you home."

The Lord is telling them: dispute the lies (you're still My people); take control (build homes, plant gardens, marry, work hard); it's not permanent.

Prophetic Word?

"I will reluctantly tell about visions and revelations from the Lord. I was caught up to the third heaven..." Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 12. "I'm not going to [boast about] it. I will boast only about my weaknesses." How often do we hear modern preachers boast about their strength of their relationship with the Lord that enables them to provide prophetic words for the nation, for the congregation, for an individual? How much can we rely on these visions and revelations that people have?

Or about their interpretation? Many have commented on Paul's use of 'third heaven'. But do they have it right? I think we build our hermeneutics on sand when we venture into visions, dreams and other prophecies about the future.

Take Daniel's visions and interpretations. In chapter 2, he interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream about four kingdoms. Many scholars say the last empire is the Roman empire. Does it fit the godly description of kingdom built on iron, mixed with clay, which Daniel is weakened because of intermarriages. This sounds more like Europe through 19th century. If that's so, then the rock that destroys this kingdom isn't the coming of Christ but something else. And all the kingdoms are crushed into nothingness (Daniel 2.44 NLT), which means they won't exist after the rock comes. After Christ appeared, the Roman empire still existed. It existed even after Christianity became the official Roman religion.

Similar observations can be made about his vision of four beasts in chapter 7. Some interpret the fourth beast as portraying Antiochus Epiphanes. Others say it's the papacy or Catholic church. However, after the Lord comes in judgment, three beasts lose their authority but live. Some think this means there are descendants of those kingdoms. With finality, the fourth beast is destroyed by the Lord. There would be no descendants. Is the fourth beast Rome, the Catholic Church, papacy that has survived beyond the supposed 'time, times and half a time'? What are we to make of the holy interpretation that the fourth beast is different from the others? How much different was Rome from earlier kingdoms, or Antiochus, or the Catholic church (say from the Jewish religion)? The beast is supposed to be so different that it frightened Daniel, who has already suffered conquest, enslavement, and exile at the hands of a foreign government.

Daniel has a vision alongside a river in chapter 8 in which he sees two animals--a ram and a goat--representing (more or the same) kingdoms. If they are the same kingdoms as shown to Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel earlier, why is God being so redundant? Of course, the visions are spread over several years. However, Daniel seems to have remembered them quite vividly. Does he really need to get another one? With this last one, Gabriel helps him out with an interpretation saying the first animal represents Media-Persia and the second Greece. Some claim the second animal represents Antiochus who tormented Israel for 1150 or 2300 days as the prophecy says. The Grecian empire is supposed to attack the Prince of princes and be destroyed, but not by human hands. Who is the Prince of princes? God himself--the King of kings? Others have the Prince of princes as the same as the commander of God's army (v. 11). This person is shown in Joshua 5, which many think is Christ. The Prince is probably not an archangel to whom we should not be offering sacrifices anyway. If the Prince is Christ and the goat is Antiochus, he was gone 200 years or so before Christ, and defeated by the Maccabeean rebellion. The Maccabeean rebellion did not end Grecian control of the world, nor of Israel nor end any occupying force from entering Jerusalem. There were 23 other Seleucid rulers after Antiochus Epiphanes. Gabriel also says this wicked ruler, 'a master of intrigue' (v. 23 NLT) would be successful in every endeavor. Antiochus failed to defeat Egypt. It is supposed that he rampaged over Israel as a tantrum for failing in his conquest further south.

Daniel's vision seems to imply that God is finally triumphant. If the Prince of princes is Christ, then perhaps the Media-Persian and Grecian kingdoms are metaphorical and not literal.

Regardless, Daniel was sick for days about this vision. He didn't understand it even after Gabriel explained it. Daniel was not anxious about opposing the king's rule over what he was supposed to eat. Nor especially troubled over explaining the dreams to Nebuchadnezzar (although he was sorry to deliver bad news to the king in chapter 4), who wasn't a friendly, approachable kind of leader. The question remains: for a man who has witnessed so much destruction and barbarity, what terrified him so much in that vision that we moderns have recorded for us in history? Or is there some terror yet to come that is worse than we've ever read about?

We are on dangerous ground, shifting sand when we try to interpret someone else's visions and prophetic words about the future. There are hardly any past occurrences that accurately and completely fit God's word. So is God's word inaccurate or are we incomplete in our understanding? More likely, our comprehension is lacking.  As Paul said about his own vision, "Whether I was in my body or out of my body--I don't know--only God knows" (2 Corinthians 12.2). With regard to a lot of these things, only God knows. Let us not boast on what we 'know' about what's going to happen, we might just be wrong.

Sacrifice Because of Sin?

"Therefore, dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to give your bodies to God because of all He has done for you. Let them be a living and holy sacrifice--the kind He will find acceptable. This is truly the way to worship Him." (Romans 12.1)

In the Hebrew scriptures, unblemished animals were offered up as a sin offering and sacrificed to the Lord. Are we so unblemished that we would be acceptable?

In the Hebrew scriptures, the cost of the animal was perhaps enormous for each family, and a 'waste' of an important source of nourishment. One woman showed great devotion to Christ by sacrificing a container of perfumed oil. It cost a year's wages (Mark 14.4). She may not have saved that much, but sold something of great value in order to show devotion to Christ. Would we sacrifice something so great to show how much we love Him and want to indicate how important our relationship with Him is?

"Because we understand our fearful responsibility to the Lord, we work hard to persuade others. God knows we are sincere, and I hope you know this too...If it seems we are crazy, it is to bring glory to God. And if we are in our right minds, it is for your benefit. Either way, Christ's love controls us...we also believe that we have all died to our old life." (2 Corinthians 5.11-14)

Worship and Fellowship Together, Resist Together

Stay alert. Watch out for your great enemy, the devil. He prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for someone to devour. (1 Peter 5.8)

Alone, in his boat, he sits

Every Sunday on the lake.

This is his pattern and his pleasure.

He looks to the sky, to the trees

And sees his god.

On shore, his god is not there.

On shore, his work tears him down.

On shore, his family frustrates him.

On shore, bill collectors call him.

On shore, the most he feels is anger.

On the lake, he feels peace

Because he's stopped thinking

And feeling and caring.

He doesn't love

His wife, his kids, his hobbies

Or his work.

He loves his isolation.

Alone with his god, himself.

His god is kind to him.

His god sets standards he can meet.

His god doesn't expect any extra from him:

His god has no sacrifices of time, money.

His god asks for worship that he enjoys:

His god asks for pleasure and rest.

But when the world crushes him

His god is impotent.

His god is ignorant.

His god is nowhere.

His god is shameful.

His god induces guilt.

His god puts the blame on others.

His god has no grace.

His god has no mercy or forgiveness.

His god will tells him he's alone.

His god is angry.

His god tells him to work harder.

His god does not give him any strength.

Or new talents.

His god doesn't give him any peace.

Lions try to isolate the weak among the herd. They don't attack the herd en masse. 

When our brothers and sisters in Christ are hurting--physically, emotionally, spiritually--we need to surround them. They shouldn't be isolated. Nor should we isolate ourselves. When isolation occurs, we only listen to ourselves or teachers who agree with us (2 Timothy 4.3).

Therefore, we who have been comforted by God need to comfort others (2 Corinthians 1.4). We can't do this alone; it's much easier to hold another person up when two are doing it together. There is another example from nature: if a Canadian goose has to drop out of the formation because it's weak, injured or sick, another will descend with it. The second goose will stay with the first till it continue on the journey, or it dies. Paul also challenges us in Romans with this admonition to protect the weak among us: "Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong...and those who don't eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. Who are you to condemn someone else's servants?...For we don't live for ourselves or die for ourselves. If we live, it's to honor the Lord...Christ died and rose again...to be Lord both of the living and of the dead...so let's stop condemning each other. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not cause another believer to stumble and fall...For the kingdom of God is...a matter of...living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit...So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up" (Romans 14.1-19 abridged).

Let the enemy hear: we will not abandon our brother or sister when they are weak, injured, doubting or sick. You need to hunt someplace else. We have surrounded them. We who are strong will protect the weak. Be gone, Satan!

(If you are believer, get yourself surrounded by a loving fellowship, albeit a church or small group; find a group you can trust. It won't be perfect but it's better than being on your own. Make sure it doesn't abuse you and make you more hurting. Understand the difference between conviction and destruction.)

Controversy and Questions

For years now, and into the future, there will be religious controversy about same-sex marriage. Here are my questions:

Heterosexual marriages are declining already. The percent 'never married' as been increasing in the past 23 years according to the Census Bureau; the percent of 'ever divorced' women by 60-69 years of age has been increasing. The percentage of marriages reaching the fifth anniversary has declined below 90%, rebounding slightly in the past 10 years. Marriages have a median duration of 8 years. Clearly people are living longer than 8 years after getting married; half of the time, we just can't live together longer than that. 'Faux condolences' are given to anyone who plans to get married, and it's the butt of many jokes. Why would same-sex marriages hurt marriage as an institution? What would it take for heterosexuals to be serious about marriage and try to make them last longer than 8 years?

Marriage is defined often as 'between one man and one woman'. Yet in Exodus 21, immediately after the giving of the 10 Commandments, there are instructions about altars and the treatment of slaves. Male slaves were free to abandon their wives and children in the seventh year, if they were married while in slavery. God then deals with the taking a second wife, and admonishing any husband who neglects his first wife, a slave wife. If God is concerned with monogamy, why wouldn't He proclaim this immediately rather than deal with slave wives and second wives--even before dealing with personal injury circumstances?

Opponents to same-sex marriage proclaim that marriage should be denied because homosexuals are practicing sin. Many evangelicals claim that no sin is worse than any others. Does that mean we should deny marriage to anyone who practices greed, envy, idolatry (serving mammon, celebrity worship, and other idols), sexual immorality (like desiring visual and textual pornography), hostility, quarreling, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, drunkenness (Galatians 5) and respectable sins like irritability, impatience, frustration, anxiety, ungodliness, worldliness, an uncontrolled tongue, lack of self-control, self-centeredness, discontentment, unthankfulness (some of Jerry Bridges' list)? Or are some sins worse than others because they're not 'common' or respectable? Or do you have to have so many 'sin points' in combination in order to be denied marriage, like abusing a spouse which is anger and hostility and self-centeredness, etc.?

Conversion Rates for World Religions

Pew Forum suggests that the growth in Islam in the past 10 years is related to the birth rate. Growth will slow as the birth rate slows in countries with large Muslim populations. They suggest that the conversion rate is effectively nil as converts to Islam equal the number leaving Islam.

A 2001 study by David Barrett suggests that the conversion rate to Christianity is twice the rate of Islam.

A summary of 3 studies in 40 countries over 10 years, ending 2001, finds:

52,557 people surveyed said they used to be Christian (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) but only 48,588 say they are currently Christian; a change of -8%.

458 people surveyed said they used to be Muslim and 485 say they now are; a change of +6%.


The biggest change is the loss of former Christians to "no religious affiliation" at a rate of approximately 20% and an overall growth rate of 50% 'conversions'.

Tabernacle Destroyed

Looking at 2 Corinthians 5.1 again, I noticed that the Greek word for 'destroyed' or 'taken down' is katalythe. It was previously used by Y'shua in the context of the Temple being torn down (cf. Mark 14.58). Similar words were used in Mark 13.2, Luke 21.6 in the same context. That similar word was also used by Gamaliel as he cautioned the Sanhedrin about opposing the apostle's teaching and performing miracles in Y'shua's name. "If they are planning and doing these things merely on their own, it will soon be overthrown" (Acts 5.38 NLT).

Also skenous (or skene) is translated as tabernacle and predominantly used Hebrews 9 and 13. Compare Hebrews 9. 11 and 2 Corinthians 5.1:

• So Christ has now become the High Priest over all the good things that have come. He has entered that greater, more perfect Tabernacle in heaven, which was not made by human hands and is not part of this created world. (Hebrews 9.11 NLT)
• For we know that when this earthly [household of the tabernacle] we live in is taken down, we will have a house in heaven, an eternal [dwelling] made for us by God himself and not by human hands. (2 Corinthians 5.1 NLT with editing)

Clearly the passage in Hebrews is not talking about a human body, as most commentators and the NLT translators have implied for the 2 Corinthians passage. Why are those responsible for interpreting 2 Corinthians 5 for us ignoring a key word like 'tabernacle'?

Paul goes on to write about groaning while living in the earthly tabernacle. Could he be talking about persecution? Could he be talking about the discomfort within the organized Jewish religion? Might this also be what Y'shua meant when he said it's not good to put new wine in old wineskins (Matthew 9.17)?

"The [troubles] we see now will soon be gone, but the things we cannot see will last forever. For we know that when this earthly household of the tabernacle is taken down, we will have a household in heaven made for us by God himself and not by human hands." (2 Corinthians 4.18-5.1)

All In?

Our church has been going through the book Radical by David Platt. He starts out by looking at Luke 14.25-35. Here Christ is asking us to be all in. Besides saying that nothing should get in the way of our following him, he says we're salt. If we lose any of the saltiness, we're no good.

Imagine him asking you, "Will you give me your best? Your very best? Your absolute best? Even if you don't know how far I'm asking you to go?" Of course, you want to say, "I will, Lord. Whatever you ask." But is there some hesitation in your voice or your heart, because you don't know what he's going to ask you to do.

In this world you'll have trouble. Christ told us that in John 14. Paul alludes to it in 2 Corinthians 4 & 5, not only personally but also for the whole church being battered by storms. When trouble comes, you might feel like quitting.

But Christ is yelling, "You promised your best, your absolute best! Don't give up! You can do it. Just keep going." And he's with you the whole time, encouraging you, exhorting you. He did this with his disciples who did not understand him completely. He stuck with them, even when their attitude stunk, got afraid and denied knowing him.

"Cheer up, Zion! Don't be afraid. For the Lord your God is living among you." He's right beside you or in front of you.
"He is a mighty savior." He'll fight the battles. You have to follow.
"He will take delight in you with gladness." It's easy to do your best for someone who knows you can do good work.
"With his love, he will calm all your fears." Don't worry. Keep pushing forward. Go all in! Like a mom holding you during a storm, he's right there.
"He will rejoice over you with joyful songs." When you cross the line, he celebrates your victory.

Zephaniah 3.17 (NLT)

Watch this excerpt from Facing the Giants. Imagine the coach as Christ with you. Remember others are watching you and how you live out your belief. Have the attitude that you can do all things through Christ...