Politically-Correct Jesus

I don't believe that anyone of His days-as-mortal would have called Jesus "politically-correct."

If He had been, He would have said things like this:

"Let the little children and the young people and the middle-aged and the old folks come to me, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these - and, of course, everyone in-between."

"Blessed are the meek, as well as the bold and those who are sometimes self-confident and sometimes not, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

"When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Also invite the rich and middle-income neighbor and you will be blessed, because they might assume it's pot luck and bring something."

"Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him. Or at least whoever believes in something."

"You might be slightly mistaken or misled because you are not completely familiar with the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. Sort of all unisex, you know."

"I tell you the truth as I see it: Unless you eat the something that simulates the flesh of the Son or Daughter of Man or Woman and drink a fluid which reminds your of his or her blood, you have only some life in you."

"Sell a few of your possessions and give to the poor and keep the rest as wise stewards, lest you become poor and must receive gifts from others. Provide purses or wallets for yourselves that will not wear out, a secure investment in heaven or nirvana or the afterlife that will not be devalued by inflation, where no borrowing-but-not-returning unfortunate comes near and no moth or butterfly nibbles.

"I am one of the ways, one of the truths, and one of the lifestyles. No one comes to the Parent but by his or her own path."

Wow. That would really be teaching with authority.

Sorry, David

My blogging buddy David U. has been encouraging me for months, if not years now, to write a book.

Sorry, David. This ain't it.

But it is a work that's designed to help you, your small group, and/or your church to study a really, really good book titled Pilgrim Heart by Darryl Tippens.

You can find it at http://www.bible.acu.edu/leafwood/pg.asp?ID=93, or by going to the Leafwood Publishers site and searching for "group guide." It's beautifully produced, and still priced to keep you out of the poorhouse.

And it really is a three-in-one book: a 17-week / one-quarter-year study written by Angi and me (okay, mostly by Angi), a weekend retreat study created by minister Tom Robinson and member Julie Short of Manhattan Church of Christ NY, and a 40-day congregational study by minister Steve Martin of the Tri-Valley Church of Christ in Livermore, CA.

So you could conceivably share it with your small group over a church-study quarter, and they would become enthusiastic enough to share it with their elders and church leaders over a weekend, and they in turn would share it with your church in a 40-day study, all from the same book.

All right, I'm dreaming. Yet I still think any size group (or person!) could benefit from the study of the communal spiritual disciplines that Darryl describes, over any period of time, with or without this Group Guide.

Maybe better with than without.

Angi and Darryl go way back to OCU days together. She has written several books before - textbooks in her specialty field of communication, organizational culture and conflict management - so her expertise shines in this study guide; mine is but an editing glimmer here and there. Certainly the creators of the weekend retreat and 40-day study deserve cover credit far more than I do.

So I guess I need to earn that grace gifted to me on this first publishing effort, and write something more worthy of it. I owe it to them.

And, of course, to David.

Disclaimer

I'm not a Greek-speaker.
I don't speak Greek.
Might make me weaker
as a seeker
But it helps to keep me meek.

Let's Be Honest

My blogging friend Fajita, with his usual fine knack for getting to the point and nailing it with a single blow, named several reasons for people using the wrong interpretational "tool" (hermeneutic) in his comment to the previous post. The middle one was:

selfishness - using an inappropriate tool in order to arrive at a conclusion that fits a personal or organizational goal.

Guilty as charged.

I'll bet you are, too.

We Christians have a tendency to proof-text ... to lift a single passage of scripture out of its comfortable, contextual home and try to make it sit up, roll over, and speak; to make it say more - or less, or even something different - than it actually wants to say in order to prove our pet point.

Oh, we recognize that Satan can do and has done and will do the same thing. But that's when scripture is mishandled by the hands of the enemy and twisted into a growling, snarling beast. Not when it's in our loving hands.

So we do it under some misapprehension that when it's done by those who love God and love scripture, it's not wrong.

That, as a scholar like Fajita would recognize, is intellectually dishonest. It is disingenuous.

And it's a fine line.

When someone asks a question about a matter on which scripture is abundantly clear, is it wrong to share with them that clarity without making them read an entire chapter or biblical book? I don't think so. Jesus pulled a few words of psalm and prophecy out of the canon of that day to make His point - more than once, to be sure.

But, to say that something is mandated, permissible, or forbidden because scripture does not specifically mention it is dishonest. It's pushing your agenda. It's proof-texting at its worst.

Why not just be honest about it? Why not just say, scripture is silent and possibly indifferent on the subject? Why not enumerate your reasons for the way you believe on the subject and just say, "This is my preference. This is what draws me closer to God and what I do to keep my conscience clear before Him"?

To me, it's clear that there were all kinds of questions upon which the church of century one could have easily split, and epistles were written to try to prevent it. Gentiles could eat meat sacrificed to idols with a clear conscience; the idols meant nothing to them now. Jews could not; those idols represented Satan and his hordes. The instruction was, "Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."

It was not a hard-and-fast rule. Under certain circumstances, that would require being sensitive to the conscience of others. Under other circumstances, it would necessitate demonstrating your belief. In all circumstances, it would demand loving brothers and sisters in Christ and engaging in dialogue with each other in order to understand each other better and draw closer to God together.

There was never an instruction in scripture to be right about everything. Not then. Not now.

In a discourse that establishes God's ability to judge perfectly and be right as opposed to man's disqualification to do so, Paul writes the Romans, "Let God be true, and every man a liar." At the risk of proof-texting, I believe he encourages us to be humble with regard to our own judgment, and recognize God's perfect judgment.

In fact, I believe that the whole of scripture has as a long-running subtext, from beginning to end, the recognition that we are not up to the task - and God alone is.

That's why we need to back off of our microscopic inspection of other's eyes in order to see clearly the log in our own. (Hey - there's a blog title in that somewhere!) That's why we need to be able to confess that we've been wrong and repent. That's why we praise God for His perfect balance of righteousness and mercy expressed in His Son, Jesus.

That's why there is no room in our methodology to retreat to separate camps of like-minded ones and loudly proclaim "Here's what I think and I'm right about it because God says so. Look right here at this isolated verse! Look at it with my hermeneutic! See it my way, or go to hell!" Nor is there room to smugly observe the other camp, joke and judge: "They just don't get it."

That's why there is all kinds of room in our methodology to say, "Here's what I believe and why. What do you think? How does it read?"

That's why, even though Jesus was the embodiment of God on this world who could have thundered the proclamation of His truth to all mankind simultaneously, He still left us the methodology of asking questions, telling stories, and reading scripture - together.

Call it a perfect example.

How do you read it?

The Comprehensive Hermeneutic, Part 2

What does a comprehensive hermeneutic look like? How does it work?

Why not try it out on a familiar passage:

"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. This is my command: Love each other." - John 15:9-17

What's the command? I'd say it's "Love each other," repeated for emphasis. "Bear fruit."

What's the example? "...As I have loved you." He showed us what that means. But first, He told us.

What's implied? Jesus wants me to lay down my life for my friends, just as He has. That we should bear fruit that outlasts us, just as He has. That the Father wants to give us what we ask for in Jesus' name.

What's the narrative? The context is the last Passover. Jesus has just washed his disciples' feet. He has told them that He will soon die. He is reassuring them. He is instructing them. He gives one command. He explains what that means.

What's the story? Jesus is promoting his followers from servants to friends, letting them in what God the Father has told Him. Is the story bigger than just what happened here? Are His words only for His followers then, but not now? When He says, "You are my friends if you do what I command" tells me that we are in mind here, too; and that may be the reason that the Holy Spirit urges John to tell this part of the story that the other gospel writers do not.

What does it tell us about God's nature and purpose? There's a promise attached to this reassurance: If we bear fruit, God will give us what we request in Jesus' name. That if we obey Jesus' command, we are His friends.

Now, this is the briefest (and possibly the shallowest!) of all possible exegeses on this verse, but doesn't it reveal more than if only the first three or the last three questions are explored?

Do you agree that both hermeneutics have value?

In what kinds of scriptures will the old hermeneutic have greater value in revealing God's message to us? In what kinds will the new hermeneutic have an advantage? Where will both serve us better? What scriptures may remain seen only as in a mirror dimly no matter what approach you use?

The Comprehensive Hermeneutic

It's time for the war between the old hermeneutic and the new hermeneutic to end.

If you're not familiar with the terms, the old hermeneutic sees everything in the Bible in the light of command, example or necessary inference. The new hermeneutic sees everything in the Bible in the light of narrative, story, God's nature and purpose.

The plain fact is, we need both.

Don't use the old hermeneutic to try to make the Song of Solomon into a prophetic allegory of the love of Christ for His church. It ain't there.

Don't use the new hermeneutic to try to explain away God's justice as expressed in the Law as obsolete under the reign of Christ. He's still just, and judgment will take place - no matter how much He loves us.

There are times when the old hermeneutic is still indispensible. Don't make fun of it. Don't abandon it.

There are times when the new hermeneutic is revealing and enlightening. Don't trash it. Don't exclude it.

Because those hermeneutics are the result of our individual preference for approaching not only God's word, but every other gift of His in this world. We see things primarily rationally, or primarily emotionally. But sometimes - especially when it comes to Biblical interpretation - we go to extremes. If we exclude emotional approaches, we become heartless. If we exclude logical approaches, we become brainless.

The two hermeneutics work together, you see.

Logic alone can fail us - often because of emotional biases. The same scripture can logically lead two people to polar-opposite conclusions. That's the time to re-examine it in light of all other scripture, with a comprehensive view of God's loving AND just nature.

Emotions alone can fail us - often because our logic is faulty. Two people can see the same scripture as each wants to, with an unscriptural conclusion that God is only about love or only about judgment. That's the time to re-examine that scripture illuminated by the whole of God's word and the revelation of His kindness AND His severity.

And if, overarching both hermeneutics, there is not a recognition of God's desire for us to be reconciled to Him, to be one in Spirit and purpose, to let Him do the legislating and judging ... then we've just plain missed the point.

What point?

The point He gave us that Word to "get."

The point we are to live for each day and each moment.

The point His Son lived and died and lived again in order to get across to us.

Whosoever Will

Here are just a few reasons I can't believe that the Bible teaches universal salvation; the salvation of everyone whether they believe, obey, seek God - or not:

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers." - Romans 8:28-29

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:12

"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' " - John 14:6

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. - John 3:16-18

"But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved." - Hebrews 10:39

I can't deny that these verses exist. I'm not permitted to re-interpret them some way that I would prefer that they mean. I can't explain them away, or ignore them, or pretend that they don't exist. They say what they say.

God chooses us. We choose Him - or we don't. As far as I can tell, God doesn't force a relationship with Himself on anyone. Doesn't kidnap someone and say, "Be my bride." Never has.

Nearly as I can tell, never will.

"Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life." - Revelation 22:17b

The 'Sin' of Conflict

Confession time. I am a long-time, certified, card-carrying conflict avoider.

It's the way I was brought up. It's the way I believed. It's the result of seeing second-hand the major conflicts in my church and first-hand the minor conflicts in my family as I grew up. (My dad was an elder. I couldn't help but overhear. My mom and sisters were, and are, strong-willed. I couldn't help but witness.)

And while "conflict-avoider" has become an integral part of my nature, I have come to the conclusion that it is just plain wrong.

As in "sinful."

Moses was not a conflict avoider. Nor was any good judge nor any good king nor any prophet who followed him.

Jesus was not a conflict avoider. Nor was any apostle nor any missionary who followed Him, in scripture.

Conflict is an unavoidable aspect of the human condition.

God's word shares all kinds of ways to resolve it. Some are obviously better than others. And a few are absolutely priceless.

Some "for-instances": Matthew 5:23-26. Matthew 18:15-35. All of John 17. Romans 12:17-19. I Corinthians 6:6-8. Philippians 4:2-9. I Peter 1:22, and 4:8 for emphasis. I Timothy 5:1-2.

Just a sampling.

None of which has anything to do with avoiding conflict. All of which deal with conflict in an imperative, urgent manner.

I know that resolving conflict can have the look of sin. It can tempt sin. It can involve sin. But, handled as advised by God, it doesn't have to - and not dealing with conflict can lead to even worse problems.

No two people are ever going to agree on everything - you can bank on it.

But God - who is perfect harmony among three Beings as One - can help resolve conflict between and among us, if we are willing to be the instruments of His peace.

'Either-Or' and the False Dilemma

I know I've railed about this before, and if you're tired of it and wish to pass on this post, please forgive me and feel free to move on.

John Alan Turner, at his Faith 2.0 blog posts Ministry vs. Mission and Defining Missional describes what - to me - are false dilemmae phrased in "either-or" terms.

In the "Ministry vs. Mission" post, it is phrased by an elder interviewing minister candidates: Are you a minister or an evangelist? (In other words, is your focus "inner" or "outer"?)

In the "Defining Missional" post (the earlier one of the two), it's found in the comments as a description of the differences among traditional, contemporary and missional churches.

I think the choice is artificial.

Minister candidates should answer that elder's question, "Yes."

Churches should avoid labels like "traditional," "contemporary" and "missional" like they were invented by Satan himself. In fact, I'm not so certain that ...

Okay, I'll back off. But isn't the purpose of labels to divide (and conquer)? To say one is better than the other? More necessary? Morally right? Scripturally defensible?

And shouldn't all churches be concerned about keeping their members, attracting non-members to Christ AND serving the Lord and the communities they are in?

Shouldn't all ministers?

I respect John Alan and prefer the way he asks his question: "Which way does your church lean?" It's more realistic; less absolute. And it has, implicit within it, an expression of danger that "leaning" too far in any given direction will put a church off-balance.

Now I have a question.

Why do we try to limit ourselves, our ministries, our success and God's preferences by phrasing things like this in mutually-exclusive, "either-or" terms?

A Mother's Day Blessing - Reprise

(Originally posted in 2005.)

In 1999 I was asked to lead a "prayer and blessing" for Mother's Day at Highland Church of Christ in Abilene, and I didn't exactly know what that meant. I turned it over to the Lord in prayer, consulted a bit with elder John Willis (who was to read a passage and lead another prayer at the service), and put pen to paper in hopes that the Spirit would supply the words I lacked. John intended to read from Isaiah 49. This is what I read that Sunday morning in May:

We call God our Father in our prayers and our private meditations, but we don't often think of Him in "motherly" terms. Yet, that is exactly how God chooses to express His tender affection and compassion toward His children when Isaiah speaks for Him in chapter 66, verses 12 and 13:

"For this is what the Lord says: 'I will extend peace to her like a river, and the wealth of nations like a flooding stream; you will nurse and be carried on her arm and dandled on her knees. As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you, and you will be comforted over Jerusalem."

It's my privilege this morning to lead us in a petition to God for a blessing on those who give us birth, give us homes, give us love and give us themselves. If your mom is nearby and you'd like to hold her hand while we ask this blessing together, please do.

May the Lord always bless mothers like Eve
... who may have been suprised to find they are with child
... who courageously approach motherhood for the first time ever
... and some who later must cope with the untimely death of a beloved child.

May the Lord always bless mothers like Sarah
... who may have laughed at the thought of having a child later in life, but take the job seriously
... who may not see their child married, or see their grandchildren in this life, but have faith that they can still become the mother of nations.

May the Lord always bless mothers like Hannah
... who want a child so badly that they never cease to ask God's blessing in this way
... who are willing to give up their children to adoption by another family for a chance at a more blessed life
... who dedicate their children to the Lord's work and His house.

May the Lord always bless mothers like the prophetess Anna
... who may possibly never have children of their own
... and who, without a thought of bitterness, fast and pray for others at the Lord's house,
... and give Him praise for the children others have and bring there.

May the Lord always bless mothers like Eunice - and grandmothers like Lois
... who teach their children Bible stories
... who tell them of God's love and will for them
... and give them the gift of a faith as strong as Timothy's.

May the Lord always bless mothers like Mary
... who meet the challenge of rearing a child very different from His brothers and sisters
... who may have felt a degree of estrangement from a child who describes his companions as his "mother and brothers and sisters"
... but who never stop believing in - and supporting - their children ... even at the foot of a cross.

May the Lord always bless mothers ... but especially on this day, which is also the Lord's day. For "as a mother (who) comforts her child" has God so loved.

For all mothers we thank You and praise Your Name, Father; and all these blessings we pray through the Son who expresses Your love to us in its most eloquent way.

Amen.

Do We Really Need Them?

Do we really need those people in our Christian fellowship who insist that they are right about the Bible; that their interpretation is the correct and only one; that any and all deviation from what they believe and teach will put you out of fellowship with them and with the Lord?

Well ... yeah.

How different are the two extremes in Christianity today from what they were in century one?

Is a contemporary Christian who views scripture with amber-lensed spectacles - seeing it only as a great legal pad full of ordinances and rules - all that different from a Jewish Christian from century one, who had spent his or whole life trying to obey all 613 precepts?

Is a Christian of today who sees scripture through rose-colored glasses - viewing it as a pink release slip from law and responsibility - not similar in point of view to the Gentile Christian of early church times, who had always lived in liberty and at the mercy of the gods?

And isn't there a middle ground - not of compromise - but of clearly-focused scriptural interpretation, one that sees God's Word with untinted lenses, in all of its Technicolor glory?

Paul the apostle was trying to be the Holy Spirit's scribe when he wrote I Corinthians; coming, himself, from that strict Jewish point of view and also addressing Gentiles who had emerged from pagan "morality." His answer, in chapter 12, is that we all need each other.

As followers of Christ, we are all given one Spirit. If we call Him "Lord," it is by that Spirit. He gives different gifts, and different tasks for using them to serve - but in some measure, "God works all of them in all men." (He doesn't say "each of them in each person.")

But they are to be used for the common good.

Then Paul lists some gifts:

• the message of wisdom


• the message of knowledge


• faith


• gifts of healing


• miraculous powers


• prophecy


• distinguishing between spirits


• speaking in tongues


• interpretation of tongues

Paul concludes the list by saying that the Spirit gives these gifts as He wills, - and the implication is "not as we will."

And he begins building one of the most valuable metaphors in all of Christian theology by saying "The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by (or "with" or "in") one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks (Gentiles), slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink."

Each part of the body has its unique and vital function. Each is essential. Eyes need ears need hands need feet need ... well, modest parts.

"But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it."

So, what do spiritual gifts have to do with hermeneutics? What does all of that have to do with our need for each other?

Everything.

Everything we have and are and even believe (v.9; also Ephesians 2:8) is a gift of God. We call Christ "Lord" by His Spirit. Our backgrounds, heritage, natures and resulting perspective on scripture are all His gifts to us. Some of them make it harder to see scripture for what it is. Some make it easier.

- Just as there are some of us who are gifted with poor eyesight or other physical impediments to overcome, we are also challenged by God to transcend ourselves in our view of scripture as well as in our perception of Him through His creation (Romans 1:20).

In the same way Jesus opened the minds of His followers to scripture in century one (Luke 24:45), He promised them that His Spirit would "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).

Here are some ways that I believe people with different views of scripture can fulfill their mutual needs for each other:

1. They open each other's minds to the scripture by the Spirit working through them and through it; by calling their differences back to scripture to see what it clearly, untintedly says.


2. They can keep each other in check, encouraging each other to avoid extreme positions on any matter which scripture leaves to conscience.


3. They can appeal to God together in prayer for a clearer, less-tinted perspective on what His will for them is, expressed in His word.


4. They can maintain active (dare I say "spirited"?) dialogue, which keeps them focused on Christ - rather than on peripheral issues of little or no importance - and that focus will naturally lead them to unity in purpose: serving Him in this world, rather than arguing about Him.

I confess that my lenses tend toward the pink. I have to work and work at it to wipe them clear. I have to work even harder to avoid judgment when I read or hear the words of folks whose lenses tend toward the yellow. You see, I've come to realize that the description in my opening paragraph's question can describe either extreme.

But I am convinced that, as differently-gifted parts of one body, we need each other.

We're His body in this world.

And He needs us to be one.

Are You Saved?

Sure, I know; that's the line of almost every televangelist worth his or her salt.

And it's a question that I don't like as much as the one posed by S.M. Lockridge: "Do you know Him?"

But it's the question that anonymous posed on my blog in response to the post A Universal Appeal. Actually, it was phrased: "So, are you saved, or are you condemned?"

Does anonymous visit your blog often? I occasionally get visits from anonymous, but rarely answer. This time, I did:

anonymous, I don't generally make it a practice to answer folks who aren't courageous enough to leave a name with their comments.

But yours is a fair question and deserves a fair answer.

My salvation is ongoing - a process that began when I turned my life over to the Lord. It isn't just what happens to me when I die.

Tell me what you think of Paul quoting Isaiah in II Corinthians 6:2. Do you get a different picture?

It's not a perfect answer, of course. I'd be making a lot more money and doing a different job if I could dispense perfect answers. And, of course, I can't discern motives people have for asking such questions. That ability would lead to more lucrative employment, too, I'm sure.

Since my post does address the point of view that confidently affirms God's universal salvation of all mankind, it's possible that anonymous felt that someone who disagrees with it - like me - might have no good answer to the question. Perhaps just a shruggy, "Well, I hope so!" or "That's up to God!" or "We'll soon see, won't we?" And all of those are acceptable answers ...

... to the wrong question.

There is a sense in which salvation is still ahead. In Romans 13:11, Paul urges Christians to behave in love because "our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed."

Two chapters earlier, the apostle describes it as something already sent (past tense) to the Gentiles.

In Ephesians 1:13, the addressees were "included in Christ" (past tense) when they heard the word of truth - perhaps because their acceptance of it and obedience to it was immediate. (And perhaps not.)

And in Philippians 2:12, he expresses it as an ongoing process that we are to "work out ... with fear and trembling."

So those are more of the reasons behind my answer. Like the whole subject of eschatology and the triumph of God's kingdom, salvation seems to be one of those "already-and-not-yet" blessings. He works it out with us; and we with Him.

Maybe the better question would be "Are you about your Father's business of salvation?"

- That is, if you know Him.

Missing Pepperdine; Anticipating the Table

Reading others' blogs this week has been more of a trial than usual. So many of my favorite bloggers were able to go to the Pepperdine Lectures, and I couldn't. I went last year, for the first time, and would gladly make it an annual event if it weren't for the timing.

This weekend was my daughter's eleventh birthday party.

My involvement minister was in Tennessee to close on his old house there.

My preaching minister, singles minister and our Family Life Center manager all went to Pepperdine.

I look forward to hearing their reactions to it.

I am also looking forward this morning to a worship hour at my home church which focuses solely on meeting Christ at His table.

As far as I know, it will be a traditional celebration with small portions and forward-facing pews. It won't and can't be all that you or I or anyone else might yearn for.

At the same time, I believe - as I commented on Mike Cope's blog recently - if we give our hearts to the table in whatever setting we find it, Jesus will change us there and draw us closer to His own heart.

The Problem with Tongues

Do you know what I think was happening in Corinth when Paul had to write to the church there?

A lot of selfishness.

A lot of puffery and pride, and maybe even some fakery.

Don't go quoting this as scripture, because I'm reading between the lines here. But everything Paul addresses that needed remedying there boils down to selfishness and arrogance: from choosing up sides and smelling armpits to incestual adultery to lawsuits among them to refusing commitment to their betrothed ones to hogging the fellowship meal to - dare I say it? - faking gifts of the Spirit.

Yeah. That's what I think was going on there, back then. Some folks who wanted to be important, more important than Paul, felt compelled to display the same spiritual gifts he had displayed - or better. They couldn't fake miraculous healing; they couldn't fake casting out demons, but they could babble incomprehensibly and claim to be speaking in tongues - in different human languages - just the way Paul had and the apostles in Jerusalem had at Pentecost. He wasn't in Corinth anymore. He couldn't confirm or deny it.

So Paul's inspired remedy was to limit the sharing of those gifts to the benefit of all. Don't speak in tongues unless someone interprets; otherwise you're talking to yourself and God and wasting everybody else's time.

And if fakery was involved, getting it back into their worship times would require collusion. Conspiracy, with someone else who would "interpret." And in century one, that could be a deadly thing. Stories like what happened to Ananias and Sapphira would make the rounds.

The best part is that out of the Corinthian fakery (which I'm weaving from whole cloth and holes in logic), one of the most genuine chapters of Christian instruction is written: good ol' number 13.

If we're not here for each other, then we're not here for God, either.

Of course, we never fake it in church nowadays ... do we?

There have been a few times when that chapter has kept me from faking it in church; a few times when I didn't feel like being there but I had some duty to do or responsibility to perform. And, unfortunately, a couple of times when I didn't think of it and didn't want to and went right ahead with being as disingenuous as any babbling would-be spirit-speaker.

And I probably didn't make any more sense than one.

A Universal Appeal

God saves whom He wills.

I believe that.

"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." He said that. Paul even quotes Him in his letter to Rome.

God wants to save everyone.

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Peter understood that. John said He wants it so much that it cost Him the life of His Son. It was His universal appeal, offering to do for us what we could not do for ourselves.

I believe that, too.

From the very beginning, though, He has offered people a choice. From Eden to Ararat to Sodom to Egypt to Canaan to Babylon to Bethlehem to Calvary to now; He has provided a gate to enter and a path to follow.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Jesus said it. He also said: "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." And Mark's gospel adds, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

So I believe that, as well.

And while I love to read of the confidence we can have in God's love and generosity throughout Paul's letter to Roman Christians - not to mention His deep desire to draw all men unto Himself - I find the same promise in the middle of it: "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." And I find nothing that contradicts His long history of commanding all to repent - through all the prophets, through Christ, through Christian messengers - and His ongoing willingness to put an end to those who continue to rebel; to follow their own path away from Him and to the harm of themselves and others.

Therefore, I believe He will.

Because in describing His own full glory, His very nature, He said: "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

He is just and righteous. Therefore He judges and punishes.

He loving and merciful. Therefore He forgives and redeems.

My late dad used to express this dual and dueling nature within God as His two arms: an arm of righteousness and an arm of mercy; an arm of justice and an arm of compassion.

To believe in a God who is only one or the other - who can only be one or the other - is to believe in a one-armed God.

I believe in a God who is mighty to save, and mighty to condemn.

And His universal appeal is not lost on me.