I'd like to communicate how our relationship with God, our Father, is different than our relationship with the World. One way to do this is by showing how a "law of nature" is different than a "judicial law". A "law of nature" is not law because a man mandates a system to "need to" operate as it does, but rather because a man observes a system to operate as it does, and in as much as it operates so "consistently," it is categorized as a "law." Similarly, what we hear communicated through scripture is how our relationship with God, and actions which proceed from such, is consistent with such a relationship. Conversely, man determines how a relationship "ought" or "need" to operate, and we dictate that a relationship is "contingent" upon a dependent. The "law of gravity" and "judicial law" displays such a difference.
When we speak of the consistency of the "law of gravity," we are merely concluding from observation that, when a body of mass is within the sphere of influence of another body of mass, there consistently is an attraction which results. It can't be spoken of accurately as something which "needs" to be so, but as something which "is" so (or is seen/experienced to be so). When we speak of the contingency of a "judicial law," we are defining how a relationship will operate, because we mandate it to be so.
Our actions will be Christ-like when we come into relationship with God, not because they "need" to be so in order to be in relationship with God, but rather, because that "will" be so when in relationship with God. Similarly, when an apple is within the context of our nature, it will experience gravity, not because it "needs" to in order to be body of mass, but because it "will" do so when it is within our environment.
Our right standing with God is not contingent upon our right actions with those of the world, but rather, our right actions with those of the world are consistent with our right standing with God. If you love God, you will love your brothers. You need not love your brothers in order for God to love you, but rather, your love for your brothers will be expressed when you are, in fact, loving God.
This litmus test is not given for us to judge our brothers' relationships by, but to discern our own relationship according to.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Monday, August 21, 2006
Crowded Intimacy
I've been nudged to sit back down into a deeper place of intimacy with Jesus. I've been reminded that my individual abiding in Jesus is the best place for my heart and everything else (the stuff I do) to come out of. Like ingredients in an entree, or nutrients in the soil, the more "abided" on is in Jesus, the better what results. If intimacy with Jesus would be categorized as one step in the process of your day, it would have to be set apart as having al together different effect on the day than any other process. Like, there's a number of ways to move your body throughout the day, but there's one movement, that of moving food from your plate to your mouth, that effects all other movements: nourishing all other movements.
So after a crazy construction season in my life, I've been feeling the urge to revisit how "abided" I am, and some interesting thoughts surfaced this go around while studying scripture with some friends over breakfast.
Looking at John 15, when Jesus is talking about abiding in Him, I was caught off guard by what seemed to me to be the "grunt" of HOW abiding was to happen. I was expecting to hear about times of individual intimacy, really pressing in by yourself to seek God's heart and mind, about how to bask in Jesus. Whatever it was, I was expecting it to look like one branch really sinking deep into the vine. Instead, I got a different flavor. What I heard was something like, "Abiding in me looks like you loving people." It was this connected string of abiding in Jesus meaning obeying His commandments, and His commandment is to love on another.
It seems to me like, however being REALLY close to Jesus looks like, DEEPLY abiding in God, you will be doing this through being REALLY loving to people, and DEEPLY connected to others. I think this has to do with Him being Father to all people, so you loving your brother IS loving your Father. Think about how someone best compliments or builds you up. For me this is right in line with how when people seek to encourage my wife or my sons it is as much of a (if not more) effective way of encouraging me. Do you want to love me? Love my wife and kids. Give them gifts; flatter them. No friend of mine who seeks to honor me will do so to the detriment of my family - it's contradictory.
Do you want to love The Father? Love the sons and daughters of The Father. Love The Father's Bride.
So after a crazy construction season in my life, I've been feeling the urge to revisit how "abided" I am, and some interesting thoughts surfaced this go around while studying scripture with some friends over breakfast.
Looking at John 15, when Jesus is talking about abiding in Him, I was caught off guard by what seemed to me to be the "grunt" of HOW abiding was to happen. I was expecting to hear about times of individual intimacy, really pressing in by yourself to seek God's heart and mind, about how to bask in Jesus. Whatever it was, I was expecting it to look like one branch really sinking deep into the vine. Instead, I got a different flavor. What I heard was something like, "Abiding in me looks like you loving people." It was this connected string of abiding in Jesus meaning obeying His commandments, and His commandment is to love on another.
It seems to me like, however being REALLY close to Jesus looks like, DEEPLY abiding in God, you will be doing this through being REALLY loving to people, and DEEPLY connected to others. I think this has to do with Him being Father to all people, so you loving your brother IS loving your Father. Think about how someone best compliments or builds you up. For me this is right in line with how when people seek to encourage my wife or my sons it is as much of a (if not more) effective way of encouraging me. Do you want to love me? Love my wife and kids. Give them gifts; flatter them. No friend of mine who seeks to honor me will do so to the detriment of my family - it's contradictory.
Do you want to love The Father? Love the sons and daughters of The Father. Love The Father's Bride.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Working It In
"Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." -James (James 4:7)
This is just an interesting thought (a suspicion) that comes from a few experiences, a recent one in particular:
I can image the enemy as a risky individual, tempting his own fate, trying to pluck possessions from the grasps of humans. Imagine you have an investment in something; something you've put most of your resources in for the last 55 years of your life. You've built a nest egg. You've committed yourself. Imagine the property you've been investing in for the last 55 years of your life - where all your money has gone into - was actually owned by someone else. You've started down this financial path years ago, hoping that the heirs of the property would not reclaim this invaluable plot of land. You've been hoping that the rightful claimers would continue to be unaware of their wealth. Here's the crux: what would you be like, you crafty scoundrel, when coercing the heirs? When you, on occasion, would meet face-to-face. You only stand on a lie, your claim is invalid, so you will push hard, but not too hard. Too hard, and your ground will crumble beneath you, and they may actually become more convinced, more confident of the value of that which is theirs. You must distract, not go too direct.
This thought came when I just remembered that I had had this crazy intense struggling within myself last week. There was this thought, this destructive thought, that seemed really attractive to me for a few minutes to nourish/to think on, but decided to stiff-arm it and suffocate the flame. At the time, it was so intense and attractive, I thought it was going to be something I'd have to work at for a while. I thought, "Oh, no, here we go now. Here comes a wave of this thing to battle for a bit." But I just remembered: I'm done with it. It didn't last but for minutes. I snuffed it right out.
Thinking about this, I get the feeling that the enemy is tempting his own fate when he tempts us sometimes: like trying to pull quills from a person's writhing arm. If your not careful, you may actually push them further in as opposed to get them out. These things work themselves in with barbs that go against the grain. Have you ever tried to get out a wood sliver and ended up pushing it deeper? I think the enemy get confounded, like a guy futzing with a door hinge and pinches his fingers. The last thing he wants is a more trusting and dependent relationship between humans and God, but that's often what results from human men and women choosing to concede to Jesus's defense of themselves rather than them defending themselves.
This is just an interesting thought (a suspicion) that comes from a few experiences, a recent one in particular:
I can image the enemy as a risky individual, tempting his own fate, trying to pluck possessions from the grasps of humans. Imagine you have an investment in something; something you've put most of your resources in for the last 55 years of your life. You've built a nest egg. You've committed yourself. Imagine the property you've been investing in for the last 55 years of your life - where all your money has gone into - was actually owned by someone else. You've started down this financial path years ago, hoping that the heirs of the property would not reclaim this invaluable plot of land. You've been hoping that the rightful claimers would continue to be unaware of their wealth. Here's the crux: what would you be like, you crafty scoundrel, when coercing the heirs? When you, on occasion, would meet face-to-face. You only stand on a lie, your claim is invalid, so you will push hard, but not too hard. Too hard, and your ground will crumble beneath you, and they may actually become more convinced, more confident of the value of that which is theirs. You must distract, not go too direct.
This thought came when I just remembered that I had had this crazy intense struggling within myself last week. There was this thought, this destructive thought, that seemed really attractive to me for a few minutes to nourish/to think on, but decided to stiff-arm it and suffocate the flame. At the time, it was so intense and attractive, I thought it was going to be something I'd have to work at for a while. I thought, "Oh, no, here we go now. Here comes a wave of this thing to battle for a bit." But I just remembered: I'm done with it. It didn't last but for minutes. I snuffed it right out.
Thinking about this, I get the feeling that the enemy is tempting his own fate when he tempts us sometimes: like trying to pull quills from a person's writhing arm. If your not careful, you may actually push them further in as opposed to get them out. These things work themselves in with barbs that go against the grain. Have you ever tried to get out a wood sliver and ended up pushing it deeper? I think the enemy get confounded, like a guy futzing with a door hinge and pinches his fingers. The last thing he wants is a more trusting and dependent relationship between humans and God, but that's often what results from human men and women choosing to concede to Jesus's defense of themselves rather than them defending themselves.
Monday, June 19, 2006
It's On...
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." -Jesus (John 3:36)
The Greek word translated here as "abides" (the transliterated word "meno") can be understood as meaning: to remain; to not depart; to continue to be present; to continue to be.
"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." -Jesus (John 3:18-19)
It seems here that on "Judgment Day" it will not be so much an action or judgment that God will do that will result in final separation from Himself, as it will be a final acquittal that will occur to remove that wrath which would have otherwise remained. It's not as much that we have to be careful when walking around to not catch a cold (wearing masks and gloves and taking injections), as it is that we've already got the bug and need a dose of meds.
We don't need to wait for it to come: it's on.
When did things get like this?
The Greek word translated here as "abides" (the transliterated word "meno") can be understood as meaning: to remain; to not depart; to continue to be present; to continue to be.
"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." -Jesus (John 3:18-19)
It seems here that on "Judgment Day" it will not be so much an action or judgment that God will do that will result in final separation from Himself, as it will be a final acquittal that will occur to remove that wrath which would have otherwise remained. It's not as much that we have to be careful when walking around to not catch a cold (wearing masks and gloves and taking injections), as it is that we've already got the bug and need a dose of meds.
We don't need to wait for it to come: it's on.
When did things get like this?
Monday, June 05, 2006
A Good Deal
Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!" Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins..." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." -Jesus (Matthew 9:2-7)
“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.” –Jesus (Luke 12:32)
“However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” –Jesus (Luke 10:20)
It seems like God doesn’t assume it should impress us if we heal the sick or cast out demons. I can imagine the perplexed look on Jesus’s face when I’d be getting all excited about the amazing Jesus-type stuff I’ve accomplished, “Not like that’s not wonderful,” I could see in His face, “but that’s all toppings.” It’s like a starved man coming back from a desperate journey across a parched plain: how narrowly he escaped death, and at the sight of the nourishing banquet placed before him, his mind is reeling at the prospect of getting to use silverware once again. It’s all well and good, but brother, you nearly died! How exactly the food gets from plate to mouth is shadowed by the reality of any nourishment at all!
I think Jesus takes our names being written in the Book of Life as a good deal for the nearly dead.
“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.” –Jesus (Luke 12:32)
“However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” –Jesus (Luke 10:20)
It seems like God doesn’t assume it should impress us if we heal the sick or cast out demons. I can imagine the perplexed look on Jesus’s face when I’d be getting all excited about the amazing Jesus-type stuff I’ve accomplished, “Not like that’s not wonderful,” I could see in His face, “but that’s all toppings.” It’s like a starved man coming back from a desperate journey across a parched plain: how narrowly he escaped death, and at the sight of the nourishing banquet placed before him, his mind is reeling at the prospect of getting to use silverware once again. It’s all well and good, but brother, you nearly died! How exactly the food gets from plate to mouth is shadowed by the reality of any nourishment at all!
I think Jesus takes our names being written in the Book of Life as a good deal for the nearly dead.
A Strange Suffering
You are aware of unseen beings, and you know their realm is within what you call spiritual. Some of these beings you know to oppose you and others you love, you call these being who oppose you enemies. You have the authority over them, the ability to command them.
Who are you? No, not what's your name, this isn't intended as a jeopardy question. Imagine with me that this was YOUR reality. If you added that facet to your present existence, that YOU, who you are right now, was able to see and command beings who opposed you and those you love, how would you respond to them?
Of what sort are you? What would your tone be with them? How quickly would you act? How impassioned would you get? What would you command of them? Would you allow them to speak? to address you? to ask of you? Would you listen?
I have observed a peculiar response from God to His enemies within scripture. Within the book of Job, God dialogs with Satan and agrees to allow Satan to have his way with God's servant Job. As recorded within the Gospels, Jesus is addressed by legions of demons possessing a man, who ask of Him to be cast into a herd of pigs, and Jesus says, "Go."
What heart must you have, if all authority has been given to you, and you endure your enemy's request? Who are you, Father?
Who are you? No, not what's your name, this isn't intended as a jeopardy question. Imagine with me that this was YOUR reality. If you added that facet to your present existence, that YOU, who you are right now, was able to see and command beings who opposed you and those you love, how would you respond to them?
Of what sort are you? What would your tone be with them? How quickly would you act? How impassioned would you get? What would you command of them? Would you allow them to speak? to address you? to ask of you? Would you listen?
I have observed a peculiar response from God to His enemies within scripture. Within the book of Job, God dialogs with Satan and agrees to allow Satan to have his way with God's servant Job. As recorded within the Gospels, Jesus is addressed by legions of demons possessing a man, who ask of Him to be cast into a herd of pigs, and Jesus says, "Go."
What heart must you have, if all authority has been given to you, and you endure your enemy's request? Who are you, Father?
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Father's Heart
Fathers, what then: when your sons are wounded? When your sons are hurting, what then?
What hurt and anger you must feel, when it's your own blood that's wounded.
Fathers, what then: when it's your son that does the wounding? When your son is the murder and the thief, what then?
What shame and hurt you must feel, when the flesh of your flesh is the transgressor.
Fathers, what then: when your sons hurt your sons? When your household is destroyed by those within, what then?
What grief you must know, when all of those who are cut and all of those who do the cutting are bone of your bone.
What if your love for your wounded son was your love for your son who did the wounding?
Brothers, why do we rape our sisters? When will I cease to wound you, my siblings? I seek the day I drop the knife and my family gathers to heal each other - to bring life to our dead parts.
While today is still today, I'm glad I'm not the Father. I'm glad I know not of the depth of that suffering. How slow you are to judge, for the sake of your heart for those, your children, who do the hurting. How patiently you endure.
What hurt and anger you must feel, when it's your own blood that's wounded.
Fathers, what then: when it's your son that does the wounding? When your son is the murder and the thief, what then?
What shame and hurt you must feel, when the flesh of your flesh is the transgressor.
Fathers, what then: when your sons hurt your sons? When your household is destroyed by those within, what then?
What grief you must know, when all of those who are cut and all of those who do the cutting are bone of your bone.
What if your love for your wounded son was your love for your son who did the wounding?
Brothers, why do we rape our sisters? When will I cease to wound you, my siblings? I seek the day I drop the knife and my family gathers to heal each other - to bring life to our dead parts.
While today is still today, I'm glad I'm not the Father. I'm glad I know not of the depth of that suffering. How slow you are to judge, for the sake of your heart for those, your children, who do the hurting. How patiently you endure.
Friday, April 07, 2006
End of Truth
A man chose a path which seemed better than its alternatives, clean and bright and full of life. The path was pleasant and proved a wise choice. Along the way he met a companion to travel with, whose company proved far more pleasant than any path without it. His traveling from then on became far less about the path beneath him and far more about the companion about him.
I do believe that God is true and can therefore withstand inquisition. However, while I also love truth, I do not honestly feel motivated to rebuild the foundations of my belief in God when its legitimacy is challenged. This lack of motivation could be the result of fear, if either God was untrue or if my belief in God as true was without full [or “enough”] confidence. This lack of motivation could also be the disconnect between the vehicles of Truth and of God, as ends in themselves.
There are two roads one can walk by that will end at God: Truth and Goodness.
If one seeks for that which is true for the sake of Truth (regardless of what one may find to be true), one will come to know The Existing One, God.
However, once one travels by way of Truth to God, they will come to know why the road is to be traveled, and may [without embarrassment] abandon traveling for the sake of the road for traveling for the sake of Him who the road lead to.
The end/goal/destination of Truth is not Truth itself [that which is true], but Him who is true, God.
I do believe that God is true and can therefore withstand inquisition. However, while I also love truth, I do not honestly feel motivated to rebuild the foundations of my belief in God when its legitimacy is challenged. This lack of motivation could be the result of fear, if either God was untrue or if my belief in God as true was without full [or “enough”] confidence. This lack of motivation could also be the disconnect between the vehicles of Truth and of God, as ends in themselves.
There are two roads one can walk by that will end at God: Truth and Goodness.
If one seeks for that which is true for the sake of Truth (regardless of what one may find to be true), one will come to know The Existing One, God.
However, once one travels by way of Truth to God, they will come to know why the road is to be traveled, and may [without embarrassment] abandon traveling for the sake of the road for traveling for the sake of Him who the road lead to.
The end/goal/destination of Truth is not Truth itself [that which is true], but Him who is true, God.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Solenoid
"But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul." (Deuteronomy 4:29)
There are several questions that approach the issue regarding why it seems difficult to know God? Why does it not seem "so bad" to do things that are spoken of with great distaste from God through the prophets? Is every "not-so-bad" non-believer really headed for hell? Why are we required to search for Him with "all" our hearts and souls? Why so much work? Why would not "most," or even "some," be all that's required? There are several ways to voice this apparent inconsistency in character between a God desiring all men to know him (1 Timothy 2:4), and yet who requires so much.
I suspect a sufficient response may be described in terms of the operation of a solenoid: a small switch responsible for triggering a larger switch. A human choosing to drink alcohol in the presence of others can display this effect. If one wishes not to become sexually involved with one with whom there is mutual attraction, the choice to partake in a substance that decreases one's inhibitions may effect all other choices while under such a state. The former choice effects the latter. Similarly, when driving over sloped terrain: the possibility of stopping at the top of the hill may diminish as one increases in speed moving towards the bottom. The frustrating response, "You should have thought of that before" comes to mind.
I think it entirely possible, even likely, that this principle may be present in the issue regarding why we must seek God with "all" of our hearts and souls in order to find Him. In the same way that our affinity to alcoholism is affected previous to our making any decisions at all, by virtue of our parents being alcoholic, our affinity to being numb towards things outside of the character of God may have been affected previous to our making any decisions at all.
Perhaps our hearts and souls were once undivided from His, and no amount of searching was needed for the finding. Perhaps after innumerable displacements from His character, one's entire effort of searching is required for finding. Perhaps it is not the magnitude of the distance which is the requirement, but the position of the destination (yes). Once the party has ended, and "home" becomes everyone's aim, some take more coffee than others for the drive, and some not at all. I propose "all" of one searching may not be so drastic an effort the more one has found Who God is.
There are several questions that approach the issue regarding why it seems difficult to know God? Why does it not seem "so bad" to do things that are spoken of with great distaste from God through the prophets? Is every "not-so-bad" non-believer really headed for hell? Why are we required to search for Him with "all" our hearts and souls? Why so much work? Why would not "most," or even "some," be all that's required? There are several ways to voice this apparent inconsistency in character between a God desiring all men to know him (1 Timothy 2:4), and yet who requires so much.
I suspect a sufficient response may be described in terms of the operation of a solenoid: a small switch responsible for triggering a larger switch. A human choosing to drink alcohol in the presence of others can display this effect. If one wishes not to become sexually involved with one with whom there is mutual attraction, the choice to partake in a substance that decreases one's inhibitions may effect all other choices while under such a state. The former choice effects the latter. Similarly, when driving over sloped terrain: the possibility of stopping at the top of the hill may diminish as one increases in speed moving towards the bottom. The frustrating response, "You should have thought of that before" comes to mind.
I think it entirely possible, even likely, that this principle may be present in the issue regarding why we must seek God with "all" of our hearts and souls in order to find Him. In the same way that our affinity to alcoholism is affected previous to our making any decisions at all, by virtue of our parents being alcoholic, our affinity to being numb towards things outside of the character of God may have been affected previous to our making any decisions at all.
Perhaps our hearts and souls were once undivided from His, and no amount of searching was needed for the finding. Perhaps after innumerable displacements from His character, one's entire effort of searching is required for finding. Perhaps it is not the magnitude of the distance which is the requirement, but the position of the destination (yes). Once the party has ended, and "home" becomes everyone's aim, some take more coffee than others for the drive, and some not at all. I propose "all" of one searching may not be so drastic an effort the more one has found Who God is.
Protect and Serve
The primary purpose of the Law is to protect others. It does this by condemning the offender. The Law proceeded from a just heart, as thought from the heart, words from the mind, the spoken from the unspoken, seen from the unseen. It is a snap-shot, a cross-section, a projection; the 2-dimensional from the 3-dimensional.
What is righteousness? What is right standing? We commonly (and appropriately) think of this within the context of the judicial system, according to the Law. But there is a fuller, deeper, richer, clearer understanding to be had of this. The right standing is according to the Law, yes, but it is to/concerning the Law giver. The end is not the Law, the Law is a just expression towards attaining to the heart of the Law giver: to stand, and this face to face. Yes, the heart of the Law giver is that we, His children, are made to stand before Him (which is our glory and to His praise). What is this end? The Father and His Children; the Husband and His Wife; Christ and His Church.
What components are necessary for this goal? The face-ward posture of both parties. If this goal is not reached, why is it not reached? Either or both parties must be hardened; must turn their backs and look elsewhere. If this goal is failed, it is not because God has turned aside, for by His own Hand has he accomplished the just requirements of the Law. We will stand because God is able to make us stand.
What is righteousness? What is right standing? We commonly (and appropriately) think of this within the context of the judicial system, according to the Law. But there is a fuller, deeper, richer, clearer understanding to be had of this. The right standing is according to the Law, yes, but it is to/concerning the Law giver. The end is not the Law, the Law is a just expression towards attaining to the heart of the Law giver: to stand, and this face to face. Yes, the heart of the Law giver is that we, His children, are made to stand before Him (which is our glory and to His praise). What is this end? The Father and His Children; the Husband and His Wife; Christ and His Church.
What components are necessary for this goal? The face-ward posture of both parties. If this goal is not reached, why is it not reached? Either or both parties must be hardened; must turn their backs and look elsewhere. If this goal is failed, it is not because God has turned aside, for by His own Hand has he accomplished the just requirements of the Law. We will stand because God is able to make us stand.
Beautiful Blindness
What is the attraction of a "blind faith?" I do admit to see some glimmer, though I must also admit I take it to be of the same sort as costume jewelry. I suspect that the majority of the instances where one comes across a claim to take God to be who you have not come to know He is (yet and/or yourself), stems from the claim-giver's fear and unbelief (for surely if one says a thing louder and more confident, it must validate its validity; to think so highly of your will as to insist it's potency can effect a truth; I now recall as a child feeling and acting as if to shut my eyes hard enough was to dissolve the obstruction to my will.) Is it not so clear that our projections of a Good God may go no further than the screen of our Imagination? Our God knows our minds; who we know Him to be. Surely there can be times where we can take Him to be both who He is and who we have not known Him (through experience) to be. And this is faith, and this is trust. But I ask, faith as what? Trust in whom? We have not trusted ourselves into our cultural context; we are born into Christian homes as others are born into Law homes. Why should we expect/desire to take our culture's word for who God is anymore than we should expect/desire other's to trust theirs? It is not trust in our doctrine that will fulfill the requirements of the law, neither trust in our parent's upbringing, nor our culture's accurate depiction of their creator. It is the definer, enactor, and fulfiller of the law that does Himself, and who knows our minds. Surely He does not now expect of us what we are not now?
What is the attraction of a "blind faith?" It is to propose and assume that our God desires us to know what we do not, to take Him to be who we do not know Him to be. And this is balanced upon fear; we resist challenging the assumption for fear it is true, for if it is, such challenging would negate its "blindness." This knowing is trusting. This trusting is incurred either associatively (concerning God's Being through other human beings) or experientially (concerning God's Being through our human being).
I reject blind faith. This is too strong, though. I reject that God desires our blindness of faith (even in Him). I must concede that it is a good thing to come into light by way of darkness, to sight by way of blindness (but, "by way of" might be better expressed "before"). It is a good thing to come to God any way one can, but once you find He is not hard of hearing, stop shouting. It is an insult to continue on playing Marco-Polo once you find your companion to have been waiting all this time at the table. Eat with Him.
If you do not will to know God is Good, you will not so know Him.
If you will to know God is Good, you will know He is so.
We come to know God by a cooperation of our wills with Truth.
We do not come to know God by an independence of our wills, which is a cooperation of our wills with Mis-Truth through maintained projection of our Imagination by our will.
How can one assist another to trust that God is Good? Not with clever rebuttals to ceaseless arguments (only a type of questioning and admittedly bias). How does one display that God is Good: by outwards expressions of actuated trust in His Goodness. Lead in following. Show how one follows well. But one must concede to not winning the battle in order to fight well.
What is the attraction of a "blind faith?" It is to propose and assume that our God desires us to know what we do not, to take Him to be who we do not know Him to be. And this is balanced upon fear; we resist challenging the assumption for fear it is true, for if it is, such challenging would negate its "blindness." This knowing is trusting. This trusting is incurred either associatively (concerning God's Being through other human beings) or experientially (concerning God's Being through our human being).
I reject blind faith. This is too strong, though. I reject that God desires our blindness of faith (even in Him). I must concede that it is a good thing to come into light by way of darkness, to sight by way of blindness (but, "by way of" might be better expressed "before"). It is a good thing to come to God any way one can, but once you find He is not hard of hearing, stop shouting. It is an insult to continue on playing Marco-Polo once you find your companion to have been waiting all this time at the table. Eat with Him.
If you do not will to know God is Good, you will not so know Him.
If you will to know God is Good, you will know He is so.
We come to know God by a cooperation of our wills with Truth.
We do not come to know God by an independence of our wills, which is a cooperation of our wills with Mis-Truth through maintained projection of our Imagination by our will.
How can one assist another to trust that God is Good? Not with clever rebuttals to ceaseless arguments (only a type of questioning and admittedly bias). How does one display that God is Good: by outwards expressions of actuated trust in His Goodness. Lead in following. Show how one follows well. But one must concede to not winning the battle in order to fight well.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
The Cry of The Church
Do you not know who you are, oh man? You see God rightly as high and mighty, but you do not know your place with him. He has made you to be His Companion. He calls you Brother, and Friend, and Wife, and Child. The Earth is cursed for now, and His face hidden from sight, but we will again walk with Him as Adam once did. Even now, we have access to His mind, His spirit, as we live on broken ground. As there is killing and profaning the beloved of God [Men] by Men (and His heart DOES break), even still do we have access to His thoughts (as Cain did). Oh, may the Earth be released! May His face no longer be hidden from sight! May we once again hear the sound of your feet as we walk with you! Glorious are you, God, to call us to yourself! Praiseworthy: to uphold our honor and count us as worthy of your suffering! May your name be praised by all lips as you are seated in Mercy above all! Precious, are you, Lamb of God, worthy of all praise and honor!
Monday, January 23, 2006
What Faith Isn't
6/1/04
I would like to dichotomize the use of the word "faith" by Christians when referring to that which we are asked by God to have in Him. I believe I have already accomplished this in my bias completion of the previous sentence with the phrase "in Him." That seems unfair (and contradictory), so I will define again that what I intend to explain is the crucial difference between concepts that can be thought of as "faith" within Christianity (I really don't want to define what I mean by "Christianity," since I don't really know right now, but I think my audience will understand my intent).
Faith, understood correctly, or better said, understood as that which our creator asks us of us, is a descriptive word. I do admit I feel a bit silly going into what types of words are, since I have a malnourished understanding of the grammar of my native language, so please overlook with kindness my poor selection of words. Faith describes, "what happens when". Faith is to actuate one's trust. Trust is placed in something, or more conclusive, someone, for I assert that even our experiences are knowingly subjective, and therefore it is more conclusive to describe our faith in something, as our faith in our own perception of something. I'll try to get to the crux.
I steal my analogy from a scene in the script of a popular adventure film:
"INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE"
Screenplay by JEFF BOAM
Story by GEORGE LUCAS and MENNO MEYJES
THE GREAT ABYSS
INDY stands in a small opening, just small enough for his shoulders to squeeze through and beyond that a 100 foot drop to the rocks below and 100 feet across, nothing but a rough, stony cliff wall.
BACK TO INDY
He can see nowhere to cross. He looks again to the v-rail Diary.
INDY: "The path of flood. Only in the leap from the lion's head will he prove his worth."
INDY looks around and then he notices that inscribed into the rock above his head is the head of a lion.
INDY: Impossible! Nobody can jump this!
INDY looks down into the Diary and tortures over what it is asking him to do.
BRODY rushes forward and calls to INDY.
BRODY: Indy... Indy, you must hurry!! Come quickly!
BACK TO INDY
INDY (realizing) It's... a leap of faith. Oh, God.
HENRY calls to his son.
HENRY: You must believe, boy. you must... believe.
We see him do it. We see him leap into space. We see that he is in midair. We see that he is not going to make it. His hands claw for the opposite wall but he is going to fall 100 feet to his death. And then-he doesn't! He appears to be held up by thin air as he lands on his hands and knees.
INDY looks around and down and now he figures it out.
Ingeniously, the First Crusaders have painted a pathway to align with the rocks 100 feet below. It is a perfect forced perspective image of the rocks below with lines from a hundred feet continuing six feet below his sight line where his feet are stepping.
It's painted to blend in with the rocks below. Highly evolved camouflage... in perfect alignment with everything we see below.
When INDY leans out to the left or right... that's when he sees the perfect alignment shift that betrays the trick. Indy throws some dirt on the bridge and he crosses it like the first Crusader from the painting over Henry's desk.
Indy crawls through a small opening in the side of the cliff and enters a Temple.
Yes, he crossed the path of flood by faith. But what does this mean? He did not walk on his faith, or was caught by his faith. No, it was the bridge that supported his weight, not his faith. What is meant here by faith, is that he acted upon something, being unaware of how it was to be accomplished. It was his faith, his acting, his actually jumping, which facilitated the use of the unseen bridge in his crossing. The point here being that, in actually, the bridge was always there. His faith didn't produce the bridge. His faith didn't enable the bridge to begin construction, or even enable him to see the bridge (the means by which the promise was fulfilled). This trusting does occur within, and without (can be evident to others, or not evident to others). The actuating can be internal, external, or both, dependent upon the circumstances in which one exercises faith. In general, I could see faith as being something that begins internal, and its affecting works progressively outward as it continues to be actuated. Progressively, because its effects accumulate compound-ly, as branches on a tree, ripples in a pond, steps on your way home. More so, in that faith seems to be the joints (focal points, crucial points) by which the entire mechanism is formed, and seems to play the central role in completing the form of the final thing. Similarly to how it is all the bends and transitions in a form that accomplishes the uniqueness, the manifestation, of what becomes the form. The changes from note to note, or verse to chorus, these things that make something what it is. So with faith: how it facilitates the form.
One can say, "I accomplish all things by faith" unaware of the v-rail Diary, and truly (coincidentally) be supported by the unaware. It will be only a matter of time before such folly will lead to ruin.
When Jesus calmed the wind and waves (Matthew 8:24-27), later to say to those in that boat, "You of little faith," I do not think that he was referring to the disciples' lack of faith to calm the storm themselves, as if they should have been confident enough to do it themselves. He said this in reference to their responding with fear towards him who had done this "great" thing, as if to say, "Haven't you come to trust me yet? Come on guys, I am so trust-worthy. I have the love and concern for you out of which I desire to do such things as quieting the storm around you, and I have the power to accomplish this. Please, trust me." Maybe this applies to what was intended by Jesus in reference to having faith as a mustard seed to move mountains? Not sure yet.
This same concept is supported regarding Peter walking on water (Matthew 14:26-31) given the response, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?" Jesus spoke this after Peter responded by "...seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, 'Lord, save me!'" I believe that the "little faith" of Peter of which Jesus spoke, was not the lack of faith that Peter had in his ability to walk on water (or even, necessarily in the lack of faith in Jesus's ability to enable him to walk, for he had already been walking miraculously on water, had already experienced first-hand proof that Jesus was able to do it), but in his lack of trust of Jesus to protect and keep him; a child's trust in their father.
Aside: Similarly, it is my faith that enables me to answer these questions (and I truly believe them to be answers and not just excuses or warping the text to fit my vantage) by trusting the character of God enough to keep searching (actuated trust), asking God, through prayer, reflection, and examining the scriptures.
Bottom line: remember who you are trusting.
Luke 17:7-10 NAS
And the Lord said, "If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and be planted in the sea '; and it would obey you. Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come immediately and sit down to eat'? But will he not say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink '? He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.'
Similarly here, the analogy of the "unworthy slave" is basically Jesus giving us reason to think soberly of our circumstance, when we, through our faith by trusting our Master, accomplish the great things that He has commanded us. See here, the reason for our sobriety rests upon the work that we did according to His will, His might, so we ought not expect Him to say, "Good job with that; Thanks for doing that." His pleasure lies in our trusting him, our obedience, and this not in the thing that was done (great as they will be through faith), but in our relationship for which it was done.
Matthew 17:16-20 NAS
"I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him."
And Jesus answered and said, "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me."
And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.
Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?"
And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
I suspect here, that it may have been the disciples' responding to Jesus with, "Why could we not drive it out?" not that, "they could not cure him" that he was frustrated with. How can a small faith do big things? Not because of the scarce potency of that substance of faith that we must produce within us, but because it is that small trust in God that will allow His might to be displayed.
The difficulty here becomes being lead by The Spirit; knowing what it is He is asking of us, speaking to us. Again, we must not collapse on ourselves with the pressure to accurately hear His voice, but keep moving (actuating trust), trusting Him that He does and is speaking to you (and the means by which, possibly unaware.) Does not our good God speak to us? Trust Him.
Almost off the subject:
Regarding what Jesus prayed out loud and was recorded in the gospels about our sins not being forgiven if we do not forgive others. Something I heard Andre Lewis say about this makes great sense. I don't think Jesus was stating a contingency, but a truth. The difficulty with understanding some of God's statements is that he is exposed to a larger time frame than humans (through His intimacy with His Father?). What he is able to see, or maybe more simply said, what he fully knows, is the effect that grace has on the receiver. Grace breeds graciousness (the spiraling upwards, the anti-entropy, the feedback-loop). Those who have experienced grace, will express grace. He's giving us a grace thermometer, a litmus test, of our relationship with God. It's as if He's looking across time and sees those who actually have experienced grace, and are therefore in the necessary relationship by which we are forgiven, do in actually (his time frame) express grace by forgiving others (a no-brainer for those who have tasted it), and letting us in on something very beneficial for those of us who will be deceived into trusting in our own ability to relate with God as one righteous by essentially saying that if we find ourselves not forgiving, it is due to our not having been forgiven. If you find yourself in such a position, do not despair, trust God.
Proposition: If there is something that we are not able to comprehend in regards our Christian faith, we are able to comprehend why it is that we cannot. We need not always know why in order to proceed sincerely in our relationship to our Creator-Lover (though at times we may), but, if we ask, I believe He will show us.
I suspect that "...in proportion to your faith..." (Romans 12:6) is a reference to the completeness of your accurate understanding of God's character. I find that the more I understand of God's character, the more fully I am convinced of his goodness, the more I am actuating my trust in him. And this makes sense to me: that I can only be expected to place as much of my trust in one I know as much to be trustworthy. My part in this is the risk I take when choosing to experience more of that which I am yet unaware; to continue to precede in those unanswered questions, as if our relationship tracks more closely to a velocity than an entity (I can't think now what I mean by something other than a velocity in terms to describe it, so entity will do). One can be said of to have "great faith," by ones looking backwards to what they have accomplished, but this only speaks to the past state of their relationship (between God and the one). Actuating ones trust as evident in any event could here be seen as a discrete slice of the thing itself. For one to learn to actuate trust, or put into practice the continuation of actuating trust might be what is metaphorically referred to as "abiding in Christ" (as in 1 John 4:13). For one to continually actuate trust is a flow of life so thoroughly completing/perfecting, that they are able to overcome any possible and unknown suffering (through their trust in who God is, of his character, not in how, when, why, etc.).
All that is to say, do not allow yourself to feel condemned and overwhelmed, you of little faith, but be free to continue precisely where you are in order to effect such changes as you could only ever be expected (by your creator) to actuate. I propose that quote, "in proportion to your faith," could also be communicated as, "in as much as who you understand God to be." I do not say, " in as much as your understanding of who God is," for I am confident that the God of my understanding is a far cry from the God of whom I understand. One's faith is the effect of their theology (regardless if they call it by that name); of their exposure to His character. Always having the capacity (all of what they need) to continue on from where they are to a fuller understanding, and lacking the expectation by God on them to take Him for who they do not know him to be. This may be where we [Testaments] come in. We can increase people understanding of God through a transfer of their trust in us to their trust in whom we say is trustworthy. Trust, in this sense, is associative.
The associative property of trust is the mechanism by which it is reasonable for one to believe that miracles occur. It is what allows one, with full confidence and reason, on this side of the wall to call to one between the walls, and understand what is happening on the other side. The reasonability of such a stance is fully contingent upon the character of the one offering the claim, not within the claim itself.
Possibly what is needed is a unified theory of philosophy, not science, taking into account existentialism and logic (spirit and truth, perhaps). Or maybe, better stated, the holy grail of the scientific unified theory is found where is displayed the convergence between relations [of beings] and natural law. The last thing I'd like to do is enlarge the "God of the Gaps" mentality, and here totally admit that "God's willing" as an explanation for the strong nuclear force may just as accurately be applied to all natural laws, and therefore its validity does not really upon the aesthetics of the pictures men paint of it (the finesse with which it can be described or ease with which understood). That said, what could be said of a thing if we see it react in such a way in all known circumstances, save one? Is it just a matter of waiting until we are aware of more contradictions within our models? Do we know of any other examples where our model seems stable but for one place?
I believe that we always have everything we need in order to accomplish that which God desires of us. "Everything" is describing our resources. While these resources do include things that exist within time and space, our time, money, and physical abilities, some dimensions of our resources exist within that which we call our self (our beings'); facets such as our emotions and intellect, that influence our wills (the "mechanism" used in our deciding something). I would like to point out that one of these resources is our understanding of who God is. I cannot image our Creator calling us to believe him as being something that we have no reason to believe him to be. He knows better than we our understanding of who he is, and by function of our finiteness, we both know that this [our understanding of who he is] will continue to be incomplete until we see him and become as he is (1 John 3:2). Therefore, consider your emotional response (your "heart") when asked to act according to what people (yourself included) say God desires of you. If it is contrary to who you understand God to be, ask God to show you more of himself regarding this area to enable you to act faithfully (to actuate your trust in Him, not in your knowingly flawed concept of Him).
God is showing me more and more how and why He is doing what He is doing, in order that I may know more and more who is doing what is being done, that I might trust my daddy.
I suspect that several of these facets of appropriately understanding "faith" can also be appropriately applied to "authority," in regards to that type which we have of God, and which God asks of us to dispense; that it does not negate the strength of the authority when one is "unconfident," or doubts, but more fully relies in its actuation, and not the emotion with which actuated.
9/16/04
In response to listening to a talk Graham Cooke spoke 10/11/01 "The Year of Favor." A point he made was to distinguish between obtaining favor and actuating favor: not that it is lacking and we must ask for favor to obtain it, but that when we begin thanking God for favor, and asking for His favor on behalf of others (who may not already have it), we see its effects. I do like this distinction [think it accurate] and wholly contingent upon the reality that one may have favor without knowing such. This reminds me of the freedom that I do believe we have, even when we're unaware. A major point being NOT that we must first procure the confidence [extinguish doubt] in order to obtain the effects of favor (placing the weight on what we can produce), but only to actuate. It is NOT our faith that produces anything (a misuse of the word - in this application), but that it is a description of the process that occurs when obtaining something (covering the range of the process - chronologically - from before the expected effects are brought about, until after they are brought about). The Israelites, once in the desert and brought out of slavery, where actually free (despite a decrease in pleasure/comfort). They did NOT have to believe it or have any amount of confidence in this IN ORDER to bring it in to actuality. However, they did have the option/freedom to return to slavery. Also, they could choose to act upon their freedom, and obtain the desired effects, and likewise, they could choose otherwise and not obtain them. Yes, it was by faith, for they did not see the expected effects before acting congruently, and they would only see them after having faith [actuating trust].
Actuating = the process of bringing into action
Trust = to believe that which is unseen; to take that which is unseen as if it were seen
It would be useful to research/examine those areas of unseen actuality (are we really free? do we really have favor? is God really trustworthy?) PRIOR to (or in conjunction with) encouraging others to actuate trust [have faith].
I would like to dichotomize the use of the word "faith" by Christians when referring to that which we are asked by God to have in Him. I believe I have already accomplished this in my bias completion of the previous sentence with the phrase "in Him." That seems unfair (and contradictory), so I will define again that what I intend to explain is the crucial difference between concepts that can be thought of as "faith" within Christianity (I really don't want to define what I mean by "Christianity," since I don't really know right now, but I think my audience will understand my intent).
Faith, understood correctly, or better said, understood as that which our creator asks us of us, is a descriptive word. I do admit I feel a bit silly going into what types of words are, since I have a malnourished understanding of the grammar of my native language, so please overlook with kindness my poor selection of words. Faith describes, "what happens when". Faith is to actuate one's trust. Trust is placed in something, or more conclusive, someone, for I assert that even our experiences are knowingly subjective, and therefore it is more conclusive to describe our faith in something, as our faith in our own perception of something. I'll try to get to the crux.
I steal my analogy from a scene in the script of a popular adventure film:
"INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE"
Screenplay by JEFF BOAM
Story by GEORGE LUCAS and MENNO MEYJES
THE GREAT ABYSS
INDY stands in a small opening, just small enough for his shoulders to squeeze through and beyond that a 100 foot drop to the rocks below and 100 feet across, nothing but a rough, stony cliff wall.
BACK TO INDY
He can see nowhere to cross. He looks again to the v-rail Diary.
INDY: "The path of flood. Only in the leap from the lion's head will he prove his worth."
INDY looks around and then he notices that inscribed into the rock above his head is the head of a lion.
INDY: Impossible! Nobody can jump this!
INDY looks down into the Diary and tortures over what it is asking him to do.
BRODY rushes forward and calls to INDY.
BRODY: Indy... Indy, you must hurry!! Come quickly!
BACK TO INDY
INDY (realizing) It's... a leap of faith. Oh, God.
HENRY calls to his son.
HENRY: You must believe, boy. you must... believe.
We see him do it. We see him leap into space. We see that he is in midair. We see that he is not going to make it. His hands claw for the opposite wall but he is going to fall 100 feet to his death. And then-he doesn't! He appears to be held up by thin air as he lands on his hands and knees.
INDY looks around and down and now he figures it out.
Ingeniously, the First Crusaders have painted a pathway to align with the rocks 100 feet below. It is a perfect forced perspective image of the rocks below with lines from a hundred feet continuing six feet below his sight line where his feet are stepping.
It's painted to blend in with the rocks below. Highly evolved camouflage... in perfect alignment with everything we see below.
When INDY leans out to the left or right... that's when he sees the perfect alignment shift that betrays the trick. Indy throws some dirt on the bridge and he crosses it like the first Crusader from the painting over Henry's desk.
Indy crawls through a small opening in the side of the cliff and enters a Temple.
Yes, he crossed the path of flood by faith. But what does this mean? He did not walk on his faith, or was caught by his faith. No, it was the bridge that supported his weight, not his faith. What is meant here by faith, is that he acted upon something, being unaware of how it was to be accomplished. It was his faith, his acting, his actually jumping, which facilitated the use of the unseen bridge in his crossing. The point here being that, in actually, the bridge was always there. His faith didn't produce the bridge. His faith didn't enable the bridge to begin construction, or even enable him to see the bridge (the means by which the promise was fulfilled). This trusting does occur within, and without (can be evident to others, or not evident to others). The actuating can be internal, external, or both, dependent upon the circumstances in which one exercises faith. In general, I could see faith as being something that begins internal, and its affecting works progressively outward as it continues to be actuated. Progressively, because its effects accumulate compound-ly, as branches on a tree, ripples in a pond, steps on your way home. More so, in that faith seems to be the joints (focal points, crucial points) by which the entire mechanism is formed, and seems to play the central role in completing the form of the final thing. Similarly to how it is all the bends and transitions in a form that accomplishes the uniqueness, the manifestation, of what becomes the form. The changes from note to note, or verse to chorus, these things that make something what it is. So with faith: how it facilitates the form.
One can say, "I accomplish all things by faith" unaware of the v-rail Diary, and truly (coincidentally) be supported by the unaware. It will be only a matter of time before such folly will lead to ruin.
When Jesus calmed the wind and waves (Matthew 8:24-27), later to say to those in that boat, "You of little faith," I do not think that he was referring to the disciples' lack of faith to calm the storm themselves, as if they should have been confident enough to do it themselves. He said this in reference to their responding with fear towards him who had done this "great" thing, as if to say, "Haven't you come to trust me yet? Come on guys, I am so trust-worthy. I have the love and concern for you out of which I desire to do such things as quieting the storm around you, and I have the power to accomplish this. Please, trust me." Maybe this applies to what was intended by Jesus in reference to having faith as a mustard seed to move mountains? Not sure yet.
This same concept is supported regarding Peter walking on water (Matthew 14:26-31) given the response, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?" Jesus spoke this after Peter responded by "...seeing the wind, he became frightened, and beginning to sink, he cried out, 'Lord, save me!'" I believe that the "little faith" of Peter of which Jesus spoke, was not the lack of faith that Peter had in his ability to walk on water (or even, necessarily in the lack of faith in Jesus's ability to enable him to walk, for he had already been walking miraculously on water, had already experienced first-hand proof that Jesus was able to do it), but in his lack of trust of Jesus to protect and keep him; a child's trust in their father.
Aside: Similarly, it is my faith that enables me to answer these questions (and I truly believe them to be answers and not just excuses or warping the text to fit my vantage) by trusting the character of God enough to keep searching (actuated trust), asking God, through prayer, reflection, and examining the scriptures.
Bottom line: remember who you are trusting.
Luke 17:7-10 NAS
And the Lord said, "If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and be planted in the sea '; and it would obey you. Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come immediately and sit down to eat'? But will he not say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you may eat and drink '? He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.'
Similarly here, the analogy of the "unworthy slave" is basically Jesus giving us reason to think soberly of our circumstance, when we, through our faith by trusting our Master, accomplish the great things that He has commanded us. See here, the reason for our sobriety rests upon the work that we did according to His will, His might, so we ought not expect Him to say, "Good job with that; Thanks for doing that." His pleasure lies in our trusting him, our obedience, and this not in the thing that was done (great as they will be through faith), but in our relationship for which it was done.
Matthew 17:16-20 NAS
"I brought him to Your disciples, and they could not cure him."
And Jesus answered and said, "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me."
And Jesus rebuked him, and the demon came out of him, and the boy was cured at once.
Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, "Why could we not drive it out?"
And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
I suspect here, that it may have been the disciples' responding to Jesus with, "Why could we not drive it out?" not that, "they could not cure him" that he was frustrated with. How can a small faith do big things? Not because of the scarce potency of that substance of faith that we must produce within us, but because it is that small trust in God that will allow His might to be displayed.
The difficulty here becomes being lead by The Spirit; knowing what it is He is asking of us, speaking to us. Again, we must not collapse on ourselves with the pressure to accurately hear His voice, but keep moving (actuating trust), trusting Him that He does and is speaking to you (and the means by which, possibly unaware.) Does not our good God speak to us? Trust Him.
Almost off the subject:
Regarding what Jesus prayed out loud and was recorded in the gospels about our sins not being forgiven if we do not forgive others. Something I heard Andre Lewis say about this makes great sense. I don't think Jesus was stating a contingency, but a truth. The difficulty with understanding some of God's statements is that he is exposed to a larger time frame than humans (through His intimacy with His Father?). What he is able to see, or maybe more simply said, what he fully knows, is the effect that grace has on the receiver. Grace breeds graciousness (the spiraling upwards, the anti-entropy, the feedback-loop). Those who have experienced grace, will express grace. He's giving us a grace thermometer, a litmus test, of our relationship with God. It's as if He's looking across time and sees those who actually have experienced grace, and are therefore in the necessary relationship by which we are forgiven, do in actually (his time frame) express grace by forgiving others (a no-brainer for those who have tasted it), and letting us in on something very beneficial for those of us who will be deceived into trusting in our own ability to relate with God as one righteous by essentially saying that if we find ourselves not forgiving, it is due to our not having been forgiven. If you find yourself in such a position, do not despair, trust God.
Proposition: If there is something that we are not able to comprehend in regards our Christian faith, we are able to comprehend why it is that we cannot. We need not always know why in order to proceed sincerely in our relationship to our Creator-Lover (though at times we may), but, if we ask, I believe He will show us.
I suspect that "...in proportion to your faith..." (Romans 12:6) is a reference to the completeness of your accurate understanding of God's character. I find that the more I understand of God's character, the more fully I am convinced of his goodness, the more I am actuating my trust in him. And this makes sense to me: that I can only be expected to place as much of my trust in one I know as much to be trustworthy. My part in this is the risk I take when choosing to experience more of that which I am yet unaware; to continue to precede in those unanswered questions, as if our relationship tracks more closely to a velocity than an entity (I can't think now what I mean by something other than a velocity in terms to describe it, so entity will do). One can be said of to have "great faith," by ones looking backwards to what they have accomplished, but this only speaks to the past state of their relationship (between God and the one). Actuating ones trust as evident in any event could here be seen as a discrete slice of the thing itself. For one to learn to actuate trust, or put into practice the continuation of actuating trust might be what is metaphorically referred to as "abiding in Christ" (as in 1 John 4:13). For one to continually actuate trust is a flow of life so thoroughly completing/perfecting, that they are able to overcome any possible and unknown suffering (through their trust in who God is, of his character, not in how, when, why, etc.).
All that is to say, do not allow yourself to feel condemned and overwhelmed, you of little faith, but be free to continue precisely where you are in order to effect such changes as you could only ever be expected (by your creator) to actuate. I propose that quote, "in proportion to your faith," could also be communicated as, "in as much as who you understand God to be." I do not say, " in as much as your understanding of who God is," for I am confident that the God of my understanding is a far cry from the God of whom I understand. One's faith is the effect of their theology (regardless if they call it by that name); of their exposure to His character. Always having the capacity (all of what they need) to continue on from where they are to a fuller understanding, and lacking the expectation by God on them to take Him for who they do not know him to be. This may be where we [Testaments] come in. We can increase people understanding of God through a transfer of their trust in us to their trust in whom we say is trustworthy. Trust, in this sense, is associative.
The associative property of trust is the mechanism by which it is reasonable for one to believe that miracles occur. It is what allows one, with full confidence and reason, on this side of the wall to call to one between the walls, and understand what is happening on the other side. The reasonability of such a stance is fully contingent upon the character of the one offering the claim, not within the claim itself.
Possibly what is needed is a unified theory of philosophy, not science, taking into account existentialism and logic (spirit and truth, perhaps). Or maybe, better stated, the holy grail of the scientific unified theory is found where is displayed the convergence between relations [of beings] and natural law. The last thing I'd like to do is enlarge the "God of the Gaps" mentality, and here totally admit that "God's willing" as an explanation for the strong nuclear force may just as accurately be applied to all natural laws, and therefore its validity does not really upon the aesthetics of the pictures men paint of it (the finesse with which it can be described or ease with which understood). That said, what could be said of a thing if we see it react in such a way in all known circumstances, save one? Is it just a matter of waiting until we are aware of more contradictions within our models? Do we know of any other examples where our model seems stable but for one place?
I believe that we always have everything we need in order to accomplish that which God desires of us. "Everything" is describing our resources. While these resources do include things that exist within time and space, our time, money, and physical abilities, some dimensions of our resources exist within that which we call our self (our beings'); facets such as our emotions and intellect, that influence our wills (the "mechanism" used in our deciding something). I would like to point out that one of these resources is our understanding of who God is. I cannot image our Creator calling us to believe him as being something that we have no reason to believe him to be. He knows better than we our understanding of who he is, and by function of our finiteness, we both know that this [our understanding of who he is] will continue to be incomplete until we see him and become as he is (1 John 3:2). Therefore, consider your emotional response (your "heart") when asked to act according to what people (yourself included) say God desires of you. If it is contrary to who you understand God to be, ask God to show you more of himself regarding this area to enable you to act faithfully (to actuate your trust in Him, not in your knowingly flawed concept of Him).
God is showing me more and more how and why He is doing what He is doing, in order that I may know more and more who is doing what is being done, that I might trust my daddy.
I suspect that several of these facets of appropriately understanding "faith" can also be appropriately applied to "authority," in regards to that type which we have of God, and which God asks of us to dispense; that it does not negate the strength of the authority when one is "unconfident," or doubts, but more fully relies in its actuation, and not the emotion with which actuated.
9/16/04
In response to listening to a talk Graham Cooke spoke 10/11/01 "The Year of Favor." A point he made was to distinguish between obtaining favor and actuating favor: not that it is lacking and we must ask for favor to obtain it, but that when we begin thanking God for favor, and asking for His favor on behalf of others (who may not already have it), we see its effects. I do like this distinction [think it accurate] and wholly contingent upon the reality that one may have favor without knowing such. This reminds me of the freedom that I do believe we have, even when we're unaware. A major point being NOT that we must first procure the confidence [extinguish doubt] in order to obtain the effects of favor (placing the weight on what we can produce), but only to actuate. It is NOT our faith that produces anything (a misuse of the word - in this application), but that it is a description of the process that occurs when obtaining something (covering the range of the process - chronologically - from before the expected effects are brought about, until after they are brought about). The Israelites, once in the desert and brought out of slavery, where actually free (despite a decrease in pleasure/comfort). They did NOT have to believe it or have any amount of confidence in this IN ORDER to bring it in to actuality. However, they did have the option/freedom to return to slavery. Also, they could choose to act upon their freedom, and obtain the desired effects, and likewise, they could choose otherwise and not obtain them. Yes, it was by faith, for they did not see the expected effects before acting congruently, and they would only see them after having faith [actuating trust].
Actuating = the process of bringing into action
Trust = to believe that which is unseen; to take that which is unseen as if it were seen
It would be useful to research/examine those areas of unseen actuality (are we really free? do we really have favor? is God really trustworthy?) PRIOR to (or in conjunction with) encouraging others to actuate trust [have faith].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)