God and Making Sense

God does not make sense to me.

But, given His existence, everything else makes sense. If He does not exist, nothing makes sense.

So I believe.

The cross does not make sense to me.

But through it, everything else does.

So I believe.

Selflessness and sacrifice of one’s own will to the benefit of others are logical absurdities to me.

Yet, without them, the world becomes a bitter, hateful, cruel, heartless place that eventually no one can survive.

So I believe.

Accepting something on faith that is undefinable, unverifiable, inscrutable, intangible, and inexpressible – well, that’s just doofy on its face.

Still, love itself is undefinable, unverifiable, inscrutable, intangible and inexpressible … and it absolutely must be accepted on faith. Without it, all else rusts and tarnishes and withers and dies and rots. Forever. The end.

So I believe.

I believe in a God who seems self-contradictory; who is love and is also hatred … joy and also anger … mercy and also vengeance … justice and also sovereign enough to have mercy on whom He wills and to harden whom He wills.

I believe in a God who could have drawn all mankind close to Him in any way He chose, yet He chose to do so by letting His own Son be brutally murdered by mankind.

I believe in a God who doesn’t owe us anything yet gives us everything, who made everything and wants us to be grateful to Him for it, yet never left His inimitable autograph on the incredible work of art that is creation – not even a “Slartibartfast” carved into a remote fjord rock cliff or inside a glacier somewhere. (You readers of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy will know what I’m talking about.)

I believe in a God who wants mankind to accept Him on faith … on the tiniest fragments of hard evidence that would not hold up in a court of law in any land under His heaven.

I believe in a God who answers our great yawping “WHY?” with a shrug and, “Because I said so.”

I’m not sure I really like that answer.

But I haven’t found a better one.

So I believe.

Because if I don’t, not all of the evidence, not all of the logic, not all of the world’s science and fact and proof and conjecture and theory and philosophy will make sense out of the questions that comprise every day of every life of everyone on this planet.

God, squelch my unbelief.

Gonna Need More Fingers

Some time back when I blogged about being “written up” in a neighboring church’s bulletin (it was just a mention, mind you), I didn’t understand at the time that my critiqued comments violated a standard tenet of belief for some of my ultraconservative brothers and sisters in Christ …

Namely, that there are only five acts of worship that are authorized by God in scripture, and any more or less than those, performed in gathered worship, is an abomination guaranteed to incur His displeasure and wrath:

Let me hold my hand up before you and let the palm of this hand represent man’s soul – the soul of man lifted up to commune with God in worship. Just as God saw the palm needed something else, and added the fingers to it, so God in the New Testament, seeing man’s condition, said, “Man’s soul as it reaches up to adore me and my son needs some avenues and I am going to point out what these are.”

He did just this very simply and very clearly. Just as there are five fingers there, so in the New Testament the soul of man reaches up in worship and communion with God through five channels, (1) singing, (2) praying, (3) studying, (4) giving of means, and (5) partaking of the Lord’s Supper. All five of these are specified in the New Testament but these are the only five. And, I am sure we will say that as the One who made the palm best knew how to make the fingers, so the one who made man’s soul knew best the avenues which this soul needed to commune with God.

~ James Baird, “Why Do Churches of Christ Use Only Vocal Music?”,
Oft-Asked Questions, p. 122
(Western Christian Foundation, Inc.; Wichita Falls, Texas)

You’ll find the same view propounded by James E. Laird in the same book of sermons, p. 152: “The Savior … made it clear that their worship should consist of singing God’s praise, giving of their means, praying unto God, teaching his Word and observing the Lord’s Supper. But that worship had not much more than been given until the devil counterfeited it.”

And, of course, you’ll find it on pp. 393-4 of Goebel Music’s Behold the Pattern.

Now I understand why part of my writing in my own church bulletin was criticized. I had said:

Some ways that you worship God are probably really different than some ways I do. A few of mine wouldn’t make sense to you or ‘speak’ to you at all; and vice-versa. My guess is that I don’t have a right to require you to adopt mine any more than you should expect me to adopt yours.

Simple logic and the five-finger rule will lead you to the conclusion that there are five and only five ways to worship, and if you’re not doing all of them or doing more than five of them, you are sinning, so there can’t be ways that I worship but that you don’t.

That’s probably why my partial quote was labeled a “counter-view”; oppositional to the critic’s “truth.” (See this or this and decide for yourself if I’m guessing correctly.)

There’s an attraction, admittedly, to having only five things to do and being able to check them off on one day out of the week and feel confident you have done all that God requires; that you’re right about it; that you’re saved – and that you don’t have to do anything else because you really shouldn’t.

Plus, you can oppose anything you don’t like – pictorial powerpoints or worship leading teams or videos or drama or clapping – because they are not “authorized.”

But worship is not that simple or easy.

If you’ve read my blog for long – especially the post A Life of Worship – you understand that I cannot accept all worship as being limited to the fingers of one hand nor to only one day of the week.

As Christians, I believe, we are to live out our sacrificial worship all the time (Romans 12:1). If we take that literally – and I believe we’re meant to – then whatever we do in word or act, we are to do it in the name of Jesus and with thanksgiving to the Father (Colossians 3:17. That’s the back half of one of the verses quoted so much about singing. Isn’t our service to God also worship?)

Christians of century one met and served and grew daily (Acts 2:45-47, 6:1, 16:5, 17:11, 17:17, 19:9). A single reference, Acts 20:7, suggests Christians met on the first day of the week to break bread but actually celebrated the Lord’s Supper after midnight on the next day; another, 1 Corinthians 16:2, only advises that “each” set aside a sum of money on that first day, not “all together” or “as an assembly.” Meeting on the first day has a special significance, reflecting Jesus’ victory over the tomb, I grant – but it was not the one and only day Christians met in century one.

I read that we are to continually confess His name and offer a sacrifice of praise (Hebrews 13:15). In fact, I believe the verse implies that confessing – both our own sins and His sinlessness; our lacks and His sufficiency – is praise and worship to God.

Romans 15:7 leads me to believe that imitating Christ by accepting each other as He accepted us brings glory to God, too. So it would seem that practicing unity is worship.

You’ll find that fasting is connected with worship in the life of the church as well, whether commissioning missionaries (Acts 13:2-4) or appointing elders (Acts 14:23), as well as being something which the Lord practiced (Matthew 4:2), gave instructions about (Matthew 6:15-17) and predicted that His followers would do (Matthew 9:14-15).

I also believe that, in New Testament scripture as well as Old, worship is a verb which stands on its own, as well as being the intention of other verbs like “to pray” or “to sing” or “to confess/share the word.” People in the Bible sometimes felt compelled to worship – and other than the kneeling or prone posture they took, we have little clue what that might involve. These exceptional moments of intimate, private communion with and obeisance before God may well be worship at its purest, since there are no other words describing them. (The New Testament references alone in which the word “worship” is used without modification are too numerous to list here.)

(And while we’re talking about a posture of prayer, is there anything that is prohibiting us from fulfilling Paul’s desire that at least the men among us lift up holy hands while doing so, in every place, whether a place of worship or not (1 Timothy 2:8?)

In larger measure, though, it makes sense to me that whatever we choose to do, whether we all agree on it or not (like eating and drinking or abstaining, I Corinthians 10:31), we should do all to the glory of God. It makes sense to me that when we use whatever gifts He has given, serving Him in any way, we should – and do – give God glory, and it is therefore worship (1 Peter 4:10-11).

So if we’re going to start enumerating all of the possible “acts of worship,” we’re gonna need more fingers than five.

And more than one day out of each week.

Adding to Scripture

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms (except Psalms 33, 47, 68, 43, 45, 49, 57, 71, 81, 92, 98, 98, 108, 137, 144, 147, 149 which all permit some now-unauthorized musical instrument, and especially 150 which mentions almost all of them), hymns (except the song of Miriam in Exodus 15 because it was accompanied by tambourines and dancing; but Moses’ song is okay), and spiritual songs (except, of course, ones which include clapping like Psalm 47 because that is no longer either fitting nor in order according to I Corinthians 14:40) with gratitude in your hearts to God. ~ Colossians 3:16

I do not (and therefore God does not) permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent (in all assemblies of worship in all places and for all time; except to sing, which is required; or to teach other women only, which is commanded; or to teach children including boys who have not yet become men, which is logical; and men are not authorized to confer the authority to teach upon a woman, only to deny it, except in the case of Aquila and Priscilla who taught together but it was in their home and they taught one person so it was therefore personal work). ~ 1 Timothy 2:12

… women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak (see second annotation in quote directly above – even if it is in a church which doesn’t have a problem with people rudely interrupting the speaker with questions about matters with which they are not familiar) , but must be in submission, as the Law says (because we are still under the Law, but it’s the new Law, the perfect Law of Christ where male dominance is the rule for all time). If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church (forever, in any place, in any circumstance, except as noted above). Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command (forever, in any place, in any circumstance, except as noted above). If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues (but not forever, in any place, except as noted above because speaking in tongues is no longer authorized). But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way (and permitting a woman to speak in a worship assembly, even one at a time with the permission of all present, would inherently cause an un-fitting and disorderly circumstance). ~ 1 Corinthians 14:34-39

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (and has since been conveyed to scripture and thence to every logical, rational-thinking person who will perfectly interpret every detail of it as pattern and law).” ~ Matthew 28:18

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (and legislating the logical, rational-thinking interpretation of it), so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. ~ 1 Timothy 2:16-17

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book (and/or all of the other books in the soon-to-be-canonized in a couple hundred years Bible): If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book (and/or all of the other books in the soon-to-be-canonized in a couple hundred years Bible). And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy (and/or all of the other books of prophecy in the soon-to-be-canonized in a couple hundred years Bible), God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book (and/or all of the other books in the soon-to-be-canonized in a couple hundred years Bible).

Look, you’ll get no argument from me that this last one is a wise instruction for any and all of God’s word. Let’s just be clear to make the distinction that it’s a principle that’s found in the closing verses of the Revelation to John in an instruction that is specific to that “book of prophecy” – rather than declaring that it commands and includes what it originally did not.

But let’s face it: a lot of the scriptures that we Christians use to prove our points have unspoken additions like these; annotations that one must presume are there in order for them to “prove” those points. Maybe there isn’t anything wrong with saying, “I know that’s not what it says, but I believe that’s what it means.” That’s more honest than saying, “That’s what it says; that’s what it means.”

Still, those additions are simply un-scriptural. They ain’t there.

I’ve got mine. You’ve got yours. Some of them probably overlap.

We can argue about whether they’re necessary inferences until the Lord returns, and still never impress anyone with the love of Christ which can save their souls; it will still never feed hungry mouths or heal broken bodies that generosity and medical science could aid; it will still never cause even an infinitesimal moment of relief in the blight of sin upon mankind.

Is that what God authorized?

Is that what pleases Him?

Law and Sin and Sight

As a marvelous epilogue to the account of Jesus giving sight to a blind man, He tells some Pharisees (who have overheard Him speaking to the man who, after being called before them twice, would not tell them what they wanted to hear):

Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. ~ John 9:39-41

Then He tells them – and has to explain to them – a parable about the sheep and their shepherd and their gate.

But what does He mean, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains”?

I realize a lot of commentary has been written to the effect that Jesus is refuting their erroneous belief that sin led to the man’s blindness, a belief that His disciples were asking Him to clarify (John 9:1-6). I have no dispute with that. I just want to know if there’s more to it.

Was He also talking about the Pharisees’ attitude – that they felt they knew it all? His phrase is “you claim you can see.” Is there anything more absurd than someone who can’t see claiming that he can? Jesus even makes a dark joke about it on two occasions – in the sermon on the plain (Luke 6:39) and after upbraiding the Pharisees on their finicky insistence on conformance to the tiniest detail of the law (handwashing here, in Matthew 15:14). He uses that term “blind guides” against them two more times, according to Matthew’s gospel: once at the beginning of a good lambasting for their following the letter of the law with regard to swearing by the temple (and ignoring the spirit of it, Matthew 23:16) … then again a few verses later at the end of a lambasting about tithing tiny herbs mint, dill and cummin – while neglecting the payment of justice, mercy and faithfulness to God (Matthew 23:24). That’s followed by an even more preposterous joke, “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!”

They thought they knew it all, but they could not weigh out what really matters to God; instead, spending their energies and passions on legislating what God didn’t mean.

Now, to the first part of the original sentence quoted: “”If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin.”

What does that mean?

Does it also mean that if you were blind to the law (which you think you see and comprehend and can perfectly interpret by your legislation, commentary and clarifications) you would not be guilty of sin?

I ask, because that seems to be in harmony with what is said about law and sin by Paul’s powerful treatise on sin and the law to the Christians at Rome:

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. ~ Romans 2:12

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. ~ Romans 3:20

… before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. ~ Romans 5:13

For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. ~ Romans 6:14

For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. ~ Romans 7:5

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. !~ Romans 7:24-25

Do you not get the picture from these verses that we are much better off without a mindset based on law; that God intended to replace law (not augment it!) for all time with grace through the gospel of His Son; that all the good we would do and all the evil we would shun would be motivated out of gratitude for what He did on the cross; that the good work we surrender to doing and the resistance to evil work are empowered by one and the same Spirit living within us and working through us?

Law has nothing to offer in comparison with grace. Why do we want to go back to that mindset of obeying a law rather than obeying a gospel? There’s all the difference in the world between them – the law was bad news for us and everyone before us; the gospel is by definition good news for all! We obey not because we are fear condemnation for our inescapable failure, but because we feel obligated by His act of ultimate, self-sacrificial love!

“If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin.”

“But sin is not taken into account where there is no law.”

Yes, it is true that where there is no law, there is lawlessness and injustice and God’s displeasure. Is that all these verses are saying? Is it only saying that people were aware of sin before the law; that awareness of it was in their genetic structure from the time the first couple ate from the wrong tree? Is it also saying that law has fulfilled its purpose when making people aware of sin, and it’s time for the next step – grace?

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. ~ Romans 8:1-4

So this new “law” – with very few commandments, and very many teachings and personal examples and requests and with blessings built into all of them – this gospel supersedes the “do this; don’t do that” mindset about every conceivable choice or situation or circumstance. It’s replaced with, “Be like Christ.” It’s succeeded by “Do unto others.” It’s matured by “Sacrifice self.” It’s perfected by “Do all to the glory of God.”

Why would anyone want to go back to being blind and yet claiming to see after being exposed to the glorious light of truth in that gospel?

I know that a Damascus-bound Paul didn’t see things that way.

I don’t believe Jesus expects us to, either.

A Neglected Spiritual Discipline

I really like Pilgrim Heart by Darryl Tippens. If I haven’t mentioned it before, or you haven’t been able to gather that from the fact that Angi and I and some other folks wrote a Group Guide to it, let me just come right out and say it:

I really like Darryl Tippens’ Pilgrim Heart. It introduces the community aspects of the spiritual disciplines that other terrific works – like Richard Foster’s classic Celebration of Discipline only touch upon, concentrating on the vertical relationship between the individual and Creator.

Darryl’s 17-week study explores these disciplines:

  • Emptying
  • Welcoming (Hospitality)
  • Resting (a two-part study, because of our need for it and neglect of it)
  • Befriending
  • Confessing
  • Forgiving
  • Listening
  • Discerning
  • Singing
  • Creating
  • Feasting
  • Reading and Storytelling
  • Suffering
  • Seeking

I mean no criticism – in fact, look at how many of those disciplines are community-based! – but if I could add one more discipline and unbalance a perfectly wonderful 17-week, 1-quarter adult education study work …

… I would add “Giving.”

It is the back half of Thanksgiving, the spirit of which inspires this national day of rest, friendship, feasting and maybe four or five of the other disciplines bulleted above. (Including “suffering,” after that 5,000-7,000 calorie meal. But that’s a whole different kind of suffering!)

Let me just share a few scriptures without comment, and you decide if my suggestion would be a worthy addition:

Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. – Matthew 5:42

Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. ~ Luke 6:38

So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. – Matthew 6:2-4

Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. ~ Luke 12:33 (but you knew I’d include this one!)

Freely you have received, freely give. ~ Matthew 10:8b

And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward. ~ Matthew 10:42

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. ~ Matthew 23:23

I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward. ~ Mark 9:41

Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him. ~ Mark 12:17

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” ~ Luke 19:8

In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple. ~ Luke 14:33

To quote a blog comment I often see (and sometimes leave):

“Ouch!”

Hymnal for the 21st Century

You know, some of our great old hymns just don’t connect with the children of this century. Or the past century. The “thee’s” and “thou’s” and “shalt’s” and especially the “shalt not’s” just aren’t easy to identify with for the new generation.

But even more off-putting than the outdated language are those insistent themes of dedication, self-sacrifice, and so forth.

So I’ve thought about updating some of those grand classic hymns – if not with more contemporary language – at least with a more realistic outlook. You know, titles like:

  • Living By Fate
  • Take My Life and Let it Alone
  • I Need Thee Every Week
  • It is Well With My Bankroll
  • Joyful, Joyful We Ignore Thee
  • Lord, I Want to Like You More
  • O Master, Let Me Balk With Thee
  • ‘Tis The Blessed Minute of Prayer
  • We’ll Wait ‘Til Jesus Comes
  • Let Jesus Bear The Cross Alone
  • and

  • Come Let Us Worship and Sit Down

I just think we’d all be more comfortable with some hymns like these.

Reader’s Digest Christianity

I woke up with this phrase in my head this morning.

I Googled it this evening and found only one use of the phrase on the ‘Net, on a Baptist discussion board among the other five answers to the question “What does ‘ecumenical’ mean?” That answer was: “It seems the Ecumenical movement does in fact seek to merge all under one banner of agreement. But this is often done at the cost of watering down the true Gospel so that it is “acceptable” to all…I think of it as Reader’s Digest Christianity…” – from a poster signed “Keith M.”

But before I Googled it, the phrase rattled around in the head of this Keith all day, who came to a similar conclusion, pretty much unrelated to ecumenicism.

I realized that during a large portion of my life, I was satisfied with Reader’s Digest Christianity. Someone else had already read and studied all the hard stuff for me and boiled it down to a length and language that I could quickly and easily absorb without spending too much time or too many brain cells on it. I missed the nuances of the original work, but I didn’t know or care.

I went to church. I listened. I absorbed. I read a verse or two along with someone reciting it.

And that was all.

And I thought it was enough.

I didn’t try to dive more deeply into the Word. I didn’t try to comprehend the fulness of Christ. I didn’t try to draw closer to God through His Son.

I sat. I swallowed the pre-chewed, pre-digested pablum that some mothering birdly teacher or preacher had prepared for me and all the other flightless hatchlings in the nest with me.

it’s not a bad way to begin your new life after being freshly born again. But we’re talking twenty- thirty-sometimes-more years into my spiritual life, and I was still finding myself at times just squatting in the nest.

It sorta calls to mind how the writer to the Hebrews upbraided their immaturity:

We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

And what “this” is that the writer had much to say about was how Christ prayed and was heard because of His reverent submission; how He learned obedience through suffering.

I still have a lot to learn about that “this.”

I won’t learn it by just hearing the Reader’s Digest version; by sitting in the pew; by waiting passively for mothering birdly teacher or preacher to drop it into my craw.

It’s time to fly.

The GraceFaithWorks Sandwich – A Second Bite

See previous post, The GraceFaithWorks Sandwich, if you like to take the second bite after the first. Long after!

I’m really not sure how to explain what I believe on the subject of salvation by grace, faith and/or works because I’m not sure that my language supports it. English is a very rational language, and speaks very easily of things logical and of things that are oppositional and therefore mutually exclusive because one is true and the other is false.

Maybe that’s because the cultures which speak it tend to think that way.

But the way scripture speaks on the subject puts the lie to salvation by grace through faith being totally oppositional to salvation through works.

My previous post, linked above, insists that it takes all three. That they are all integral to the process. That salvation is a process, rather than a one-time event. That faith without works is dead.

I alternate between two ways of looking at that perception:

  • That salvation is a binary thing: the here-and-now and the hereafter; what we do here-and-now is integral to our salvation in this life by giving us purpose and serving God and testifying daily to our faith; what Jesus has done on the cross and in exiting from the tomb is irreplaceable to our salvation in the next life.
  • That whatever a Christian does in this life is really not his or her own work, but God’s work through her or him. It is no longer we who live, but Christ in us. He created us for good works. We’re partners in the good works He does through us. He gives us the eyes to see them and the ears to hear of the need for them. He gives us the bodies, hands and feet to accomplish them. They become His hands, His feet. He gives us the energy and time with which to do them. He gives us His own example to show us how and why. He gives us His own Spirit to empower us to do those good works. If we don’t do them, we don’t really believe. If we know to do good and don’t do it, it’s sin to us. And if others judge our gospel by the way we live it or don’t, by whether we do it or not – why should God judge us any differently?

I don’t know which, if either way at looking at the subject is correct, or better, or even if they are mutually exclusive.

But I remain convinced that my old aphorism is still true: “Faith becomes fact when we act.”

No, not real fact; not fact that you can put in an encyclopedia. But functional fact. Something you believe so strongly that you act upon it as if it were true, every time, all the time.

Do you remember that great moment in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade when Indy has his instructions to cross a nearly-bottomless underground chasm on faith in order to reach the chamber where the holy grail resides? He steps out in the darkness, as instructed, unable to see the invisible stone bridge – camouflaged to look like the chasm! – until his foot rests on its solidity. Then, as he moves forward, his perspective changes; he can see it as clearly as can be.

Faith is still faith. It does not literally become fact.

But it does save us, like stone under our feet, to get us where we need to go in this life and the next.

If we’re willing to act on it.

Okay, that’s a big chunk to bite off and chew – expressed in as few words as I could write.

What do you think?

Next in this series: The GraceFaithWorks Sandwich – A Third Bite.

You May Not Believe This, But …

… I just finished reading a book titled Behold the Pattern by Goebel Music night before last.

It’s not a book you’ll likely find advertised on the Web pages of New Wineskins, to be sure. It’s not a book you’d see on a recommended reading list on my blog, if I had such a list.

I wanted to read it because it espouses a point of view I find difficult to understand, and I thought it might help me understand that point of view better. I’ve tried a couple of times before, but kept getting bogged down in it. This time, I’ve completed reading it.

It was an eye-opener – when I wasn’t cringing.

I grew up attending at a church in Indianapolis that was considered liberal and lost by at least a couple of other congregations in the same fellowship, you see. I heard sermons about grace from the time I was old enough to pay attention. I also heard sermons about obedience there, and those sermons were one and the same. But grace was the complete gift of God, including the faith that was its catalyst and the works that channeled its power. It all balanced out.

In fact, I think that balance in what I heard was a strong factor in my decision to put on Christ at the tender age of nine – a time when Edmund Gwenn’s Kris Kringle in Miracle on 34th Street might have observed that I was “too young to be guilty of much of anything.”

I find that balance to be something the author seeks to claim, if not to achieve, but cannot get over his own extremism and certainty of belief in order to do so. That he is an extraordinary Biblical scholar, I could never deny – but neither could I deny that his work is riddled with logical fallacies which arise from his predispositions. They call into question his judgment in other areas of the book which, in another work, would appear quite sound.

And I have no doubt that at least some of the “false prophets” he is eager to call out five chapters into the 660-page volume are guilty of some extremism in their views as well. It’s been my experience that when the pendulum has swung way too far in one direction, it often swings way too far in the opposite – and the folks that the author “marks” for their “uncertain sounds” are reacting to years of unyielding legalism.

Uncertainty is not something that characterizes the author. He is certain of every conclusion he has reached, no matter how tenuously rooted in scripture or the very nature of God, from the very title and concept of the book to each speaker or author he decries. Patternism, you see, is simply a way of creating a new term for the practice of regarding everything in scripture as law, (p. 627) requiring authority for every action a Christian might pursue, and weighing each possible action as intrinsically right or wrong, pleasing or displeasing to God (p. 358, p. 450).

On that same page, for example, he can confidently state that “The world is not divided over what the Bible says, but over what it does not say (cf. Exod. 3:1-3; John 8:1-11; John 3:1-3; 2 Cor. 12:7-10).” Though none of the scriptures he cites, for the life of me, can I in any way see as helping support his statement. People have always divided over what the Bible says as well as what it does not say. Citing a number of apparently unrelated scriptures is as common to this author as is not using one word where five or six synonyms will do.

Unity, he maintains, can only be achieved by “speaking the same thing” (p. 568) – but to those scriptures he cites you apparently must read in the words “about every possible question or issue.” And that becomes a problematical addition by the time you get to Romans 14 and there are issues man has raised that God doesn’t consider issues. The author simply doesn’t deal with it.

This is not a book in which you will often read of God’s love, mercy or kindness – except in transcriptions of “strange and uncertain” presentations derided by the author – but you will find a constant undertone of His righteousness, jealousy, wrath, displeasure, and justice. Few words are devoted to Christlikeness, devotion, spiritual growth, benevolence, sacrifice and day-to-day discipleship in the explicit decryption of scripture in this volume. There is a short chapter about grace (chapter 15, page 499), but it is a grace that is paired co-equally with law and the author’s logic differentiates between saving works and non-saving works. The next chapter explicitly puts women in their place (p. 516).

In it you will find the classic foundations of patternism: detailed descriptions of the gopher wood argument (p. 368), the Nadab and Abihu argument (p. 101), and the only authoritative hermeneutic (explicit statement, implicit statement, approved example, expediency – pp. 356-358).

I must credit the author with attempting to contact many of those with whom he disagrees before publishing his work … though not necessarily all; he maintains that Matthew 18:15-17 describes only private conflicts (p. 216), pending heavily on the presence of the words “against you,” which your footnote will tell you is not in all original manuscripts. At the same time, I am not sure that some of the methods of contact he endorses are especially effective. Is an invitation to a public debate – with the affirmative and negative positions already phrased to be accepted or rejected, but not revised (p. 335, 627) – the best way to approach someone with whom you disagree? I think not. Nor is sending them a questionnaire on doctrinal soundness (pp. 210-212). Nor is heavy sarcasm (p. 135, pp. 220-221, pp. 234-244) a gently persuasive tactic, in my opinion. (I would tempt sarcasm to point out that on page 447, the author maintains “I am in the pulpit of God, not to … (a long list of items, then) be a comedian” and one sentence later relates a preacher story with a mildly humorous punch line. Okay, now I’ve tempted sarcasm and fallen prey to it. So sue me.)

The fact that the author takes on Rubel Shelly in three different sections of the text indicates to me how deeply betrayed he must have felt at Shelly’s transition in belief.

Al Maxey has said that the author’s book never really does reveal the “pattern” – but I think you can deduce a pretty accurate picture of it from this passage from Behold the Pattern:

But I often have made this challenge, it is only in the New Testament church, the Church of Christ, that a person can believe and practice all these things at the same time. I know of no other group where you can believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of the Scriptures, understand the complete difference in the Old and New Testaments (law, rules and regulations), worship in song without mechanical instruments of music, commune upon the first day of every week, practice baptism in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, an immersion into Christ for the remission of sins, be organized by the scriptural government as the New Testament has outlined, have the scriptural name for both the church and the members, having Christ as the only head (no earthly hierarchy or headquarters except in heaven), teaching the relation of the church to the world, being benevolent and evangelistic, etc., etc. As I said before, some may practice one, two or more, but only in The Church of The New Testament, The Church of Christ, can you believe and practice all of the pattern at the same time! (pp. 425-6)

The better side of my nature nudges me to try to contact the author with my observations, as Al has unsuccessfully attempted to do, but I suspect that anyone who publishes a book would naturally expect it to be reviewed from time to time. There was a time many years ago, you see, when he preached for the congregation I now attend. (The two copies I have are gifts from fellow members who respected his scholarship.) I mail a copy of my church’s weekly bulletin to him at the address on the inside back fly of the dust cover. At one point in the book, he fondly recalls a minister whose daughter I married. Despite all of our differences, I feel a kinship in Christ to this often-militant defender of the faith-as-he-sees-it.

And I do owe him a great debt of appreciation for helping me better understand a mindset that I did not often encounter in the environment that reared me. I respect the zeal for scripture and God’s pleasure that so many proponents of patternism display. I wish it found more productive avenues for expression than constructing arguments, denouncing opponents, attempting debates and insisting on its own way.

But the innate self-righteousness and compulsion to attack any dissenting view – both of which seem to accompany patternism in quantity – have the same effect on me as that moment in Miracle on 34th Street when Kris Kringle pops Mr. Shellhammer on the forehead with his cane, hard enough to raise a lump: I cringe. Assault is assault, whether physical or verbal; whether the assaulted is willing to listen first – or not.

The title of the book comes from an obscure passage, Joshua 22:28, in which the two-and-a-half tribes that were distant from the rest built an altar that was a replica of the one at the tabernacle, and it almost caused internecine war. This strikes me as sadly ironic, for the author of Behold the Pattern and those who share his view of scripture would almost certainly have to admit that God never authorized that altar.

Would He have authorized such a book and a way of viewing His Word which sees only His justice, but not His mercy?

Whom to Pray For?

For someone else:

Job prays for God to forgive his friends; Abraham prays for Abimelech; his servant prays for a wife for Isaac; Isaac prays for Rebekah to have the baby she yearns for; Moses prays for relief from the plague of frogs upon Egypt; then for relief from the flies; from the hail and thunder; for relief from the fire raining down on Israel; from the snakes plaguing Israel; for God’s mercy on many occasions; for God’s mercy on the people generally; Manoah prays for guidance to rear Samson; Samuel prays for rain, for forgiveness on behalf of Israel; David prays against his enemies; and again; and again; and again; and again; and again; and again; and again; and again; and yet again; and for the peace of Jerusalem; Asaph prays for the restoration of the people; David prays thanksgiving on behalf of the people, and a blessing on Solomon to build God’s temple; Solomon prays a blessing on the temple and on Israel; a man of God prays against, then for, King Jereboam; Elijah prays for a sign that will turn Israel’s heart back to God; Elisha prays at the bedside of a dead child; Elisha prays for his servant’s eyes to see what he sees; then for blindness upon their adversaries; Hezekiah prays for deliverance for Israel; Isaiah prays for reassurance for Hezekiah; Hezekiah prays on behalf of the unconsecrated; priests and Levites pray a blessing on the people; Hezekiah and Isaiah pray for Israel’s deliverance from Sennacherib; and for the remnant which survives; for God’s forgiveness of them; Jeremiah prays against the enemies of Israel; and for the remnant; Daniel prays for God’s forgiveness on the remnant, confessing his sins and theirs; Micah prays for God to shepherd His people; Jesus teaches prayer for one’s enemies; prayer in secret; to pray for blessings physical and spiritual; He prays for little children; He prays for Simon Peter; and for His followers as His end draws near; the disciples pray for God to show them His choice; the apostles pray for seven chosen servants; Simon the magician asks the disciples to pray for God’s forgiveness of him; Peter prays for Tabitha to be restored to life; the church prays for Peter’s release from prison; Paul prays for all present to become followers of Christ; Peter prays for Publius’ father to be healed; Paul prays to be able to go to Rome; that the Israelites might be saved; asks those in Rome to pray for him; those in Corinth, too; predicts that others would pray for Corinth because of their generosity; he prays for the Corinthians to persevere; Paul prays for Ephesus; and again; and asks them to pray for him; he thanks God for the believers in Philippi; and thanks them for their prayers on his behalf; Paul prays for believers in Colossae; and begs their prayers for himself and others; for believers in Thessalonica; and again; and again; and again; and requests their prayers; and at the end of his second letter as well; Paul encourages Timothy to teach praying for others; and again; and prays for Timothy constantly; as well as Philemon; as Philemon has been praying for him; the writer to the Hebrews begs their prayers for him; James teaches prayer for others; and so does John, even for forgiveness for them.

For one’s self:

Jacob prays for deliverance from Esau; Samson prays for strength to avenge himself; Hannah prays for a child for herself (but dedicates him to the Lord); Hannah prays a song of thanksgiving; Samuel prays, presumably about Israel rejecting him as a leader; David prays a blessing on himself and his house; that Ahithophel’s counsel to Absalom would be turned into foolishness; Elijah prays for himself … to die!; Hezekiah prays for his life; three tribes prayed for victory; Isaiah prays for God to correct him in justice; Ezra and the returnees pray for safe passage for themselves and the temple’s riches; Ezra confesses the intermarriage sins of the remnant; Nehemiah prays for the king’s favor to his request; and that the king will grant his request; and that the Lord would srengthen his hands; Daniel prays for God’s help; David prays God’s favor on himself; and again; and again; and again; for forgiveness for himself (possibly referring to the incident in Psalm 51); and again; and again; for long life and a long reign; for mercy; Solomon prays for a blessed reign; Heman prays for mercy; Jonah prays for deliverance from the belly of the fish – as if it has already happened; and then he prays to die, seeing Ninevah’s deliverance; Zechariah prays for a child for his wife, Elizabeth; in a story Jesus tells, a Pharisee and a tax collector pray for themselves; He advises praying for strength when persecuted; for Himself as His death draws near; Jesus prays for deliverance from death for Himself – but also for God’s will to be done; and again; and advises His friends to pray not to fall into temptation; and again; Stephen prays to Jesus to receive his spirit as he is martyred; and James teaches to pray when in trouble.

That’s what I found, anyway. It is, as always, not a complete nor exhaustive list. There are lot of prayers mentioned but not described in scripture, which might have been for self or others or some combination (as many of the above are, and are listed twice as a result). Much of Lamentations is a prayer of mourning and penitence, and among many prayers that are on behalf of the writer and all of God’s people. And there are a lot of prayers – especially in the Psalms – that are simply paeans of praise and expressions of people desiring for God to work His will. Jesus’ few recorded prayers often contain that expression, “Thy will be done.”

Many of the Psalms, especially David’s, and some other Old Testament prayers and prophecies call for God’s wrath to fall on the enemies of Israel, and that somewhat weights the number of prayers “for someone else” – although they are actually “against others.” Ultimately, I grouped them there because they are tacitly “for Israel” in their intent.

We could quibble about a few – especially men praying for children for their wives as prayers “for someone else,” and I wouldn’t argue that those prayers are also “for one’s self” as well.

Conclusions?

I estimate that, in scripture, prayers for others outnumber prayers for one’s self about two to one at most … maybe five to three at least. (That’s why the left column is bigger than the right.)

I would have to say that I do not find God uniformly disregarding prayer for one’s self and preferring/answering prayer for others. Numbers of examples and exhortations-about-how-to-pray do not, by themselves, tell the whole story. It would be interesting – and very time consuming! – to fully research prayer in scripture and note which prayers are described as having been answered by God – and how. It might be even more revealing to connect those specific instances to penitence expressed in those prayers.

I wish I knew what Jesus prayed about those many times when He went out to lonely places to pray. Scripture does not tell us.

I know whom I picture Him praying about, given His nature; His character; His focus in life.

Even if numbers are no indicator, I still feel that prayer in community has extraordinary power – whether it is one person praying for the common good of the community, or the community praying for each other. It is an expression of concern for others above self to God.

And, to me, there is something sad about someone who has no one to pray for him or for her; or someone who does not pray for others as a general rule – or someone whose prayers are characterized by concerns for self, rather than for others and for what God wants.

So I also suspect that there is an innate power in praying for God’s will to be done … being willing to conform our will to His, even if His immediate will is not presently clear to us; being willing to accept that will and live it and praise Him for it.

The power I see in those prayers-for-others and prayers-for-God’s-will-carried-out is the power in them to change our hearts, drawing us out of self and ever closer to God through His Christ and His children.

As followers of Christ, do our prayers for others outnumber our prayers for ourselves?