Tangled Conversation: Definition Dance

It's amazing how we can kill something when we put it in a mental compartment, an intellectual bin. Why do you do that?

Oh for many reasons. One so I can judge it, dismiss it, not engage what may be quite uncomfortable or destabilizing to the way I want things to be and seem, and therefore move on trying to get you to see things as I see things. If you do that then I feel comfortable, because deep down I'm not sure, I'm not convinced I'm "right", so if you believe so, then that is verification that I am in fact right. And if I'm not right, then at least I have someone else who is in the same hole as me and we can commiserate in our darkness together.

Ooooookay, that was a little more involved than I was expecting. I thought you'd deflect that one with a pithy inciteful statement and move us on a new tangent.

Could've, didn't.

So it's simpler to judge a compartmentalized, described, and named concept?

Well sure, there are many ways to do so. The best is to refer to the person who discovered or elucidated or broadcasted the idea. If that person had a flaw or is viewed in some way by me as lacking, then I can assume without too much mental gymnastics that they are somehow wrong on this particular issue as well.

Yeah, I do that quite a bit.

It's real simple. Because otherwise I'd have to actually LISTEN to what you are saying. I'd have to actually get it in context, and doing so is so mentally taxing and humbling. I have to ask questions, internally, or directly to you. And then I have to do ALL this setting aside my NEED of being right in the first place.

So what's all this say?

Oh simply this. This conversation isn't an engagement of love, it's an exercise in selfishness. I'm spending the bulk of the time trying to convince myself of something I want to believe and using you as a sounding board in conjuction with my own thoughts. I'm not sharing, I'm using and I'm taking. I'm not expressing, I'm manipulating. I'm talking to you because I want to feel better about something, not that I actually care all that much about you.

Well I appreciate your honesty. How often do you do this?

Ehhh, most of the time. But it's not some binary thing, either I am or I am not. It ebbs and flows as we converse. The bulk of the time though I am intently focused on me though.

Back to the compartments. Is it wrong to label, to define?

Labels and definitions are tools, they are not the reality. A hammer is a tool, it is not a house. The word apple is a tool, it is not the actual apple. There is nothing inherent in the tool that is right or wrong. It is the spirit of the tools use that is important. Fire is a great tool when the spirit of its use is "proper." But it is devastating when the spirit is malicious. It really is a question of the seen and the unseen. Is it wrong to burn down a house?

Well yes. Isn't it?

What if it is a special effect for a movie? Or is being used for fire-fighter training?

Oh, well I guess it's okay in those cases.

See, when the unseen is unknown, you can make all sorts of judgements and be completely off. You can completely miss the boat.

Tangled Conversation: A Big Hint in the Baptism

When did Jesus start His "public ministry"?

After being baptized by John the Baptist right?

Right. You know what's weird about that whole thing?

The dove coming down.

No no. What the Father said.

Umm something to the effect of, "This is my Son in Whom I am well pleased."

Yeah.

What's so strange about that? I learned that in Sunday School.

Did you also learn in Sunday School that you needed to be active in service for God in order for Him to be pleased?

Well I don't think they directly stated that, but yeah, that is what we all meant.

And this was at the beginning of His ministry so....

Ahhh I see your point. That is a BIG hint about the Father. He was pleased with Jesus before Jesus started His work for the Father.

BINGO. He was well-pleased with His Son, the Person.

Wow, well-pleased before there was really anything worth being pleased about. That's God for you, that's certainly not us.

Not the religious us, that's for sure.

"Practical" is Impractical

Why Our Practical Sermons Are Impractical

It's quite simple, because we are trying to base our "practicality" on an illusion, not on the reality of Christ Jesus as is witnessed in the Scriptures.

Practicality ONLY works if the underlying reality is understood. What is practical in seamanship is ludicrous in quantum chromodynamics. They are two COMPLETELY different things, and applying one to the other is just a ministration of frustration.

So we as Christians, as we sit in our pews and love to hear practical applications, we are always begging for the practical, BUT what good is the practical when the entire ground in which you wish to delve is foreign.

• It would be like the Andean Inca's principles applied to Aborigine in Australia --
• It is like mapping a 3D object onto a 2D object -- distortions are rampant.
• It is like comparing helicopter flight with a centipedal motion.
• It is like comparing a good cup of coffee with good tuckpointing.

Sidenote: The "practical" is not about the metaphoric, it is about the actual, the techniques, the methodology. A good story may allow you to see, but when we talk practicality people are screaming for what they need to do (but what if the whole point is that when they see then they will know what and how to do).

If you do not see and understand the reality in which you really inhabit, in which the Scriptures are a witness of, then practicality is the LAST thing you need from your teacher.

An example (thank you wikipedia). Let's look at practicality in the absurd (forgive me physicists if I'm out of place here). Let's say you want "practical applications" for the use of Lagrangian mechanics for Nambu-Goto action. Well, what the HECK does that mean? Even if one could give you a "practical" application -- what good would it be? Ok, this is apparently the basics of string theory, what do we learn here? Getting a practical application means zilch if you do not understand the underlying reality.

Okay, let's boil it down simply. The practical natural has NO BEARING on the practical supernatural. And what do we often get from the pulpits? The practical natural. And how do we try to apply WHATEVER we learn, the practical natural, of course. What is the reality in which we ACTUALLY live in Christ Jesus? The supernatural.

You see the practical is the common sense. Does what you witness in the Scriptures make much common sense? No! Not to the natural mind it certainly doesn't. To the natural mind relying on God, waiting on Him, etc... makes no sense. You must strike out; you must use the abilities God has given you; God helps those who help themselves; you must do it FOR God... and on and on. But to the spiritual mind, the Scripture's downright obvious.

So practicality means nothing to the Christian when it's practical natural, because that's not the reality you've been baptized, dipped, ushered, brought, included, born, dwell into. Without seeing that reality you'll find more failing and frustration, because the two are like oil and water, they see the other as phantoms that barely interact with the world around.

Here's the rub...we cannot force our way into truly seeing. It has to be revealed and received. Well how do we get Him to reveal? Other than asking, I know not -- unless He's already done it and we refuse to see.

Insanity

Mike Wells in one of his talks had a great illustration of insanity. I'm taking quite a bit of "artistic license" with it

Who's more insane?

I'm sitting with a few friends in a booth at a local eatery. There's a lull in the conversation as we lazily gaze about us, taking in the atmosphere, content in just hanging out.

Just then a man bursts in from outside, hurriedly walks up to me, takes a well-balanced stance, points and states quite officially, "You sir, are a rabbit."

I'm a bit startled, understandble, it was an unexpected happenstance. I mentally gather myself and reply, "Why, thank you very much." I get up, and proceed to hop out of the restaurant happy in the knowledge and the belief that I am, truly, a rabbit.

Who's more insane here?

Do you believe what people say you are, or what God says you are?

The Golden Tongued Art Critic

"I have to write this stuff down!" I exclaim to myself. The man behind me is waxing eloquent in spontaneous criticism of this work of art. I have never heard this famous painting described in such a way. I had obviously seen it so wrong before. I will never look at the works of Toulouse-Lautrec the same again. As the man starts to wind down his exposition I turn around to regaze upon the piece, La Goulue Arriving at the Moulin Rouge with Two Women. For I shall never see it with the same eyes as before. Wow, as I look I must admit that he is a far greater seer than I, for I cannot see what he described so artfully. But perhaps if I study it more I too will see what he sees so very clearly. I now turn my eyes away from the picture to take in this genius, this visionary. He was standing there with his wife, her head resting on his shoulder.

"I couldn't help but overhear your words upon this piece. They inspire me. I refuse to look at paintings the same way again."

Oh he was about to respond, what diamonds of knowledge would spout forth from his mouth? But it was his wife who answered, "Oh deary, my husband here, he's blind. Been blind his whole entire life."

Never take visual arts criticism from a blind man. Never take your identity from what others say, only from what God says.

RQ: Chapter 4, Grace Amazing, by Steve McVey

A believer who believes he is good errs by comparing himself with other people instead of seeing the perfectly righteous character of God. If we compare rotting corpses, it makes little difference whether the body has been dead for a week or a month. The relevant fact is that the man is dead. All unbelievers are spiritually dead and fall short of God's standard of righteousness (see Romans 3:23).

RQ: Chapter 3, Grace Amazing, by Steve McVey

Chapter 3: Much of what we thought we knew is wrong

Many Christians have systematized their spiritual beliefs into orderly compartments that they feel are neatly arranged and easily managed. Anytime they hear something that is new to them, they attempt to fit it into one of those self-designed compartments. If it won't fit, they reject the new concept without giving it any further consideration.

This fact presents a real problem when it comes to the matter of moving people from the wilderness of religion into God's grace-land. Why? Because there is no place where legalistic religion and grace can intersect. Law and grace can never coexist together; consequently, a Christian whose lifestyle is primarily religious in essence may have great difficulty crossing over into the new land.

----------------

Hence the teacher's problem: if he leaves in his teaching a single significant scrap of the old system, they, by their very effort to understand, will go to that scrap rather than to the point he is making and, having done that, will understand the new only insofar as it can be made to agree with the old -- which is, not at all.

----------------

While we have seen the "big R" REALITY, we perceive it as "small r" reality. Our perception is always subjective, focused, limited, and partial. Though we cannot understand absolutely, we need t learn as much as possible about REALITY and to adjust our perception of reality accordingly. To do this we must learn to be open to understandings that lie beyond those we now have. We need to keep searching for new insights in REALITY and adjusting our perceptions to those new insights. This involves constant comparison between our present views and those we become aware of through other people, new experiences, including books.

----------------

If Jesus Christ wants to be number one in your life, who holds second place? For the Christian there is no number two. Jesus Christ will not be denigrated by being on anybody's list. He the whole list because He is our whole Life. For the Christian there is no life apart from Jesus. For us to live is Christ (see Acts 17:28; Philippians 1:21; Colossians 3:4). Jesus didn't come to take a place in our lives, even first place. He came to become our Life. He is number one, number two, and number 3. He's the whole list, the source of everything.

----------------

Our flesh so wants to do something to contribute to our holiness.

----------------

When then do so many people, having become Christians, now think that the life of Jesus becomes a model for them to imitate? Jesus Christ has place His life into us so that He can live His life through us. It has nothing to do with imitation but everything to do with participation. "For we have become partakers of Christ" (Hebrews 3:14, emphasis added).

----------------

WWJD...One friend said that the letter should represent "Watch What Jesus Does!"

RQ: Chapter 2, Grace Amazing, by Steve McVey

Chapter 2: God Will Put More on You Than You Can Bear

God didn't choose for the people to cross the Jordan River into Canaan when it would be difficult. He waited until it would be impossible for them to do it themselves.

----------------

They both faced circumstances that were impossible to find a way through without a miracle. Impossible situations -- those are the kind that God likes to create for those who follow Him. It is only when a believer has come to the end of confidence in his own ability to navigate his way that he will enter into the land where Go

----------------

1 Corinthians 10:13: "No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able; but with the temptation will provide a way of escape also, that you make be able to endure it." While it's a good verse, it doesn't disprove my assertion that God will put greater burdens on you than you can bear. First Corinthians 10:13 is talking about temptation to sin, not burdens. It's true that God will not allow you to be tested beyond your ability to endure, but the same can't be said about troubles He allows in your life.

----------------

The thing that He finds most attractive in man is weakness and the realization of the need to be completely sustained by Him alone.

----------------

We may reason that if we do the right things God will be pleased and bless us, but God doesn't care about what we do unless it is an expression of the union life we share with Him.

RQ: Chapter 1, Grace Amazing, by Steve McVey

Chapter 1: Religion is Now Poison for Us

Religion tries to systematize everything into neat little compartments that readily offer hollow answers for the unanswerable. Jesus never does that. He simply points to Himself and gently whispers, "Believe."

------------

"Without faith it is impossible to please Him" (Hebrews 11:6). He couldn't care less about religious ritual void of life. God is in the business of life. Nothing else interests Him. When it is all said and done, God will either raise dead things or else ultimately separate Himself from them as far as He can get. He is interested in living relationships, not dead religion.

------------

The essence of religion is man's attempt to somehow convince himself that he has jumped through enough hoops for God to give him the approving nod.

------------

Religion is poison because it kills any opportunity one will ever have to expereience genuine intimacy with God. Religion is a prostitute have sex with a man and telling him it's love, when all the while, deep in his heart, the man knows better. Religion offers the false hope that somehow there is something we can do to impress God enough to cause Him to accept us on the basis of our actions. Religion is what rushes in to fill the vacuum created by the absence of personal intimacy with God. (emphasis mine)

------------

Yet many believers, who by divine sovereignty have been brought out of Egypt and miraculously placed on The King's Highway, have now filled their tank with the gasoline of religion and their engine with the oil of self-effort and think they are on their way to the land of victorious living. They are often making good speed, but what they don't know is that they are driving in circles. They are pleased with their performance, but don't know they are going nowhere fast.

------------

Yet if the story of Israel's wandering in the wilderness and their entry into the promised land demonstrates anything, it shows how persistent God is in bringing about the good that He has promised to those who belong to Him.

------------

His intention from the beginning has been that you should enjoy your faith relationship with Him.

Uniqueness and Special

Here's how I see it. We are now in Christ, and He is in us. What does that mean? That means that we individually are Father's FAVORITE SON! Only God could come up with a way where we all could be uniquely His favorite. And what more, what does that mean, what does that translate to? A sense of pride? No, an emphatic no. It does mean a complete acceptance, it does mean we are perfectly loved. And therefore it does mean we can truly serve, can truly love, and can truly BE who we were made to BE.

The institution thinks that when we are enlivened with the Life of Christ that conformity to the Son means something like the Borg from Star Trek, where we all look at act the same. But that's NOT what the Father wants -- or else we'd all after receiving His life would change into something that looked the same. We are now able to love, but what restrictions are there on loving another? There is immense freedom and limitless range in such. Look at simply the expression of that love -- which is only a tiny sliver of the cosmos that love dwells. Some express it through art, action, words, looks, etc... And the expressions change minute by minute, circumstance by circumstance. We are now free to love, and are not bound to another person's doctrinal conception of what love is. The Law of Love we are under is the dynamic working of the Being Who is Love, as He expresses Himself through us, the faith-vessel.

Radical Thought: Love is a response to grace

Celebration of Grace, pg. 53

"Love flows as a response to grace."
We love, because He first loved us. (1 John 4:19)

If you don't see His grace, that you are forgiven, accepted, and loved, and see what He's finished, then it will be impossible to authentically love others. You will see your needs met in them, you will still expect them to fulfill your spiritual, emotional, psychological, intellectual, financial, relational, etc... needs. And when they don't you'll reject them or manipulate them in some way to get your needs somehow met in the new circumstances you have created for them and yourself. But in responding to His grace what needs are there to find in others? You are joined, in union, have an intimate relationship, IN, and He IN you, yes, HIM, the all-loving, all-powerful Creator. You know His Word, Jesus Christ, personally. You need nothing from others and therefore you can truly love them for there is nothing they need give you in return.

Relationship with God: Dial Up or Broadband

Great metaphor inspired by this talk from Grace Project.

How do you see your relationship with God? Is it a dial-up connection or a broadband one?

Installation
Dial Up: You had to do it, you have to dial up each time you want to connect.
Broadband: Simply open your door to the Someone who comes to connect you, and once you're up, you are up.

Dial-Up: Old Covenant
Broadband: New Covenant

Dial-Up: Slow, low bandwidth, limited media access
Broadband: Fast, high bandwidth, all media accessible

Dial-Up: mostly waiting (waiting for fulfillment)
Broadband: mostly finished (It is finished)

Dial-Up: limited communication ability (shadow)
Broadband: CD-quality audio and video (the reality, the fullness)

Dial-Up: a praise song, a faster song, need to download
Broadband: streaming music (unceasing prayer)

Dial-Up: quid pro quo, upload and download at same bandwidth
Broadband: download far exceeds upload limits (grace overflows)

Dial-Up: read the article of the game-winning catch (letter)
Broadband: download a video of the game-winning catch (spirit)

Dial-Up: clunky
Broadband: seamless

Sadness: Our Bible Reading Mentality Leads to Bondage

Yeah, it's this sound-byte proof-text mentality that has both been foisted on us and we've duly accepted. We take one verse, without the context of the verses surrounding it, nor the context of God's promised or finished work, to prove whatever rivulet of thought comes streaming into our minds from who knows where. And then when Christ, our freedom in Him, our relationship to Him, and the utter passion and love of the Father for us comes against some of our pet out-of-context verse doctrines we fear and flail and run to one who simply knows a great deal of verses and they comfort us as they put the chains of legalism and division around our necks, verse after every san-contextual verse.

RQ : Christocentric Theology by Jim Fowler

Both of these theological systems tend to commence from a theological starting-point that emphasizes the will of God, His decrees and His plan, rather than the personal character of God.

-----------

Theologians from both camps keep referring to the "benefits" derived from the Person and work of Jesus Christ, and how various theological categories are "applied" to Christians. The detachment of grace, salvation, righteousness, the Holy Spirit, the Church, the gospel, etc. from the dynamic life and ontic "Being" of the risen and living Lord Jesus, leaves but a dead and static theological system to be argued as an ideology and revered in idolatry.

-----------

The division of the Scriptures between Old Testament and New Testament, meaning old covenant and new covenant, with the dividing point being the incarnation and redemptive mission of the Messiah, evidences the centrality of the Person and work of Jesus Christ.

RQ: Haller, Chapter 3, Lifting the Veil

If a girl surrenders all her secrets to anyone who shows a passing interest, we would say she has degraded herself, even prostituted herself. IS this not precisely the story of modern Christianity? We are so slavishly bent on explaining ourselves that we sell cheaply ourselves and God's purposes.
-------------

No inquisition, mocker or skeptic was ever able to quash the Bible's power, influence and life. It took the modern age to do that. How? Through prostitution! By exposition, definition and analysis, by wanting all costs to be up-to-date. By spouting out all our secrets!

If you want to know what is in an automobile, the parts it contains and how it was constructed, disassemble it. Just do not try to drive the disassembled vehicle, though, because it won't move an inch. It will have lost all its power, functionality and any purpose it had. All the components belonging to a complete automobile will be lying before you, but it is still not a car.

A revealed secret is no longer a secret. Diseccted truths are no longer spiritual truths; they are ineffective, lifeless theorems.

RQ: Haller, Chapter 2

Chapter 2: The Origin of New Testament Reality

When we study Acts, we notice that even after Pentecost, not everything was New Testament in nature. The church, as it is found on the day of Pentecost, can by no means be the "original church" we are called to return to. The Christendom of the apostles is in no way the superlative model. On the contrary, it was a newborn babe. It needed to grow up out of its baby clothes and reach the maturity of manhood.
-------------

The infant stage is marked by observable signs and wonders, etc. On the other hand, the mature community gradually lays aside these things and begins to live out of the reality of the Lord within.

A great deal of struggle and a great deal of revelation was required to bring the New Testament reality, "in Christ" into this world.

Antioch (Acts 13) was where the new was first able to extricate itself from the old. The process continued much longer. Yes, even past the time of Paul's letter to the Galatians. In that letter we read of Paul's public correction of Peter because Peter had retreated from the New Testament. Galatians shows the force of the conflict when someone took a stand for the newly-disclosed reality, "Christ in me." It did not come easily.

RQs: God's Goal, Christ as All in All by Manfred Haller

Chapter 1: New Testament Reality

The apostles did not arrive at their knowledge of God through human reasonings and study. (That is the way it is approached on every level today.) Rather, revelation broke over their lives. It so confounded and took hold of them that they were forced to decide between obeying the "heavenly vision" or sinking into inanity.

-----------

When we have comprehended spiritual truths purely by means of intellect, they are only a knowledge of reality. They are only concepts until they take hold of us, have power over us. Only then have we encounted them as reality.

-----------

Spiritual realities are not opinions which we form on various things and then identify ourselves with.

-----------

Of course, we can see a shimmer of the new covenant here and there, especially in John's gospel, which recounts the life and ministry of Jesus from a revelatory standpoint. It would be wrong, however, if in attempting to prove something concerning the church -- the new creation -- we argue from the gospels, because here the new was not yet a reality (except for the person of Jesus Christ).

-----------

Man himself was to become God's dwelling, His holy place. But not the individual in himself. The community, a new humanity, a new man in Christ (Ephesians 2:15).

-----------

Pentecost is not first and foremost that which took place visibly. Pentecost is the breathtaking fact that in Christ the living God Himself came to reside in men through His Spirit. Pentecost is the indwelling of God, the Shekhina glory of God, in man -- the birth of a new creation, a new humanity, the unveiling of a new reality. What reality? Namely, "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27).

-----------

God, the creator of the universe, to whom all things are possible, He to whom even the elements are subject, whom no one can see nor articulate, searches out a pitiable human being to live in! He comes not only for a visit. No -- He dwells in us. Christ in us, the hope of glory!

-----------

She, the ecclesia, is the embodiment of Christ, the second man. She is His body. Each individual member is, therefore, in Christ. Christ is not only the head of the church in heaven; He is also the content of the church. He is her substance. If you will, He is her identity.

-----------

This inner reality -- Christ in us -- and the outward reality -- we in Christ -- are the substance of the New Testament.

The Article is part of the problem

Although we say that the church is not a building but is the people of God, we, often in the VERY next sentence, nullify this reality by using one grammatical article over another. As is so often the case our theology (or ecclesiology in this case I suppose) is manifest in the smallest words of grammar -- the articles and the prepositions we use.

My point? The use of the article "a" rather than the article "the", yep, there is it.

We say, and do so as if to get past this formality, "thechurchisnotabuildingitisthepeopleofGod." And then say something to the effect of, "We are A church yada yada yada..." "A church" means that there is more than one church, means that Christ's Body and Christ's Bride and God's City (from Revelations) is divided.

Now, one could argue that the use of "a church" is like that which Paul uses in his letters to different churches in the Epistles. But what is quite obvious that what is meant is believers in a particular area. The church in Ephesus is not an organization in Ephesus, it is the whole of believers there, por exemplo.

So the reality is we are THE church, as it manifests in this community, or city, or region, or country. Either way you dissect it, it is still the whole and the whole must be in view for Christ is not divided.

Using the body metaphor, we individual believers could be cells, and those surrounding one another are tissue or better yet an organ. What is it called when tissue or an organ begins to function without connection to the body as a whole...oh yeah, sickness, illness, you know disease. So one could argue that our language, our article choices in this instance, may be a reflection of a diseased or in the very least weakened state. The reality is that THE "church" is not A disease, it is the carrier of THE cure.

So is the solution changing our terminology? Nope. The terminology, the language we use is a reflection of our dependencies, beliefs, understandings, and thinking. Language never changes reality, but when we see reality instead of our comfortable illusions we'll find that our language will naturally change to line up with it.

What if: Imparting trumps Imputing

What if the crediting of righteousness in the Old Testament was the imputation of righteousness?

What if for those in the New Covenant it is NOT the imputation of righteousness?

What if righteousness is IMPARTED to us?

What if we are imparted righteousness because righteousness is Christ, and we are in Christ and He is in us?

What if we are blessed and accepted beyond and deeper than legal and forensic terminology?

What if our "standing" is bound in the reality of God and His supernatural work and NOT in the quibblings, speculation, and premises of our theological work?

God of our Cranial Capacity

If God is only a set of doctrines, arguments, systems of thought, and theologies, then God is only as big as your lobe. How often are we worshipping someone (or something) that only fits within the confines of our finite imaginations and understandings?

If this is our "god" then do we have faith in Him, or in ourselves and our minds? And if that is the case, is there any wonder how often we feel alienated from Him, the real Him? It's like putting the power plug of your desk lamp into a bowl of jello rather than the electrical outlet.

Nascent Church: Fecundity not Fullness

Questions that keep creeping into my mind...

• What is the result of trying to go back to a nascent state?
• What is the results of attempting to rebirth what's already been born?
• What is the result of trying to relive childhood?
• Is it redoing our birth that is important, or it is returning to a reality?
• What if scanning back at the nascent church is not for a pattern to return to, but for a reminder of a reality in which we should inhabit where we are?
• Can a predisposition towards the past lead one into further bondage, or at least away from God's leading right now?
  
• Can the good intention blind us from the excellent reality that could be happening now?
  

"I've Got So Much Love to Give"

Ever noticed how we say such things. "I've just got so much love to give." And then what usually follows is a litany of requirements for who and what WE WANT in a person to access this supposed treasure of untapped love. Hmmmm, we do try so hard to cover our flesh with fig-leaves woven in good sounding language. And boy am I a guilty one here as always.

We spend so much time looking for what we want, because (sarcasm coming) we "know" 1) what we want 2) what we need 3) what that which we want looks like 4) what that which we need looks like 5) that we have the power to arrange circumstances, schedules, and priorities that we can acquire such. If even one of those is untrue, then they are all untrue. BTW, they are all usually untrue. But wow, we so easily buy into these illusions.

But how about this? How about instead of looking for what you need...you look to and trust the One Who is EVERYTHING, and He happens to have EVERYTHING, and He happens to also know EVERYTHING, and also also is in control of EVERYTHING. And just for kicks, He IS love.

House of Prayer

You know we hear a lot that God's house is a house of prayer. And we nod our heads dutifully and tell ourselves, "yep, we need to schedule more time to pray together at church." And we COMPLETELY MISS THE BOAT.

Interestingly enough we stand on the side of Pharisees when we think this way. Stephen got stoned over this very matter. Pharisees thought that God's house was a temple -- we've just updated it to say a church building, chapel, house of God, house of Worship, etc...

But Stephen said that God does not live in houses made by human hands.

Now we dutifully not our heads at that, and fail to see the insanity of believing both contradictory things.

If God does not live in houses made by human hands then His house being a house of prayer is NOT a church building (and neither does it have anything to do with it).

Remember Jesus when He said that He would tear down the temple and in 3 days rebuild it? And everyone thought He was out of His mind, because they thought in their fleshly minds that the true temple was a building. But Christ was talking about His body -- a person.

So where does God dwell? Where does He reside? Where is He housed? In believers. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Christ in you the hope of glory.

So if His house is a house of prayer, what is it? Remember Paul says pray unceasingly. Is that a clue?

Christ tore down the "House" house, the physical house of prayer, which was just a shadow, a picture, a polaroid of the real house of prayer which is you the believer, which is us the entire family of believers.

See, here's the rub. If asked where is a house of prayer, what do we think? We think of a church building. OR, if we're "smart" we say a congregation of believers, that meets in a church building (which is actually the exact same thing). So our first thoughts, our foundational impressions before we start to hem and haw to look and sound Christian, is a physical building, the update to the temple, that God did away with at the Cross.

Thoughts on the 3 types of people

1. Those who talk about things
2. Those who talk about people
3. Those who talk about ideas

Generally this is regarded as the Materialist, the Gossiper, and the Enlightened. At least that's how we usually posit it -- and by we, interestingly enough it's the intellectual who does so.

But is this grouping as it seems? Obviously it is posited under the rubric of secularism, but let's look at it from love's reality. I submit that the order from lower to higher is things, ideas, and people as the highest. Yeah, that's right the gossiper is at the top -- but from Love's reality, this is no longer gossip. For the object of love is a person. This love is expressed through ideas. And is finally manifest in the movement, changing or transformation of things.

So love is anchored around a person -- ultimately the Person Who is Love. But what do we often see in the "Christian" religion? We see the anchor, and the focus is anything but.

There are the THING people who don't focus on Christ, but on gifts of the Spirit, or prosperity, or health. And there are also the IDEA people, who focus on theology, doctrine, rituals and rites.

Both miss the point and the Person. Both read the Scriptures through their THING or IDEA filter, rather than the Person of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately the result of missing this mark is often bondage, legalism, division and barreness. Grace and love are cast aside or given lip service because the truth of the matter is that if you are focused on, seeking, intent upon a constellation of things or ideas love and grace have no LOGICAL place.

With a thing at the center, grace makes absolutely no sense. And the same is true for love. For idols are cruel taskmasters -- how and why would a thing give love or mercy?

With an idea at the center, neither grace nor love have a place either. Where does forgiveness fit in with congruence, accuracy, logic, and soundness?

No Christianity is a Person. Sure ideas and things flow from this reality, but they are not the foundation of the reality.

We are called to be the People of God. We are a people in Christ and He is in us. He is a person. Not the gifts He gives. Not the ideas He inspires.

Do we see Christ primarily as this great helper at acquiring or controlling or changing things? Do we put His teachings above a relationship with Him the Person? We have a tendency to be either a THING person or an IDEA person. I know I myself vacillate between the two quite often -- missing the boat quite often.

Christ: Ontic vs The Deontic

Ontic: BEING
Law of Christ which is His being working in and through us

The Fruit of the Spirit is our manifesting His being and therefore His workings in and through us by our receptivity of faith.

Fruit is something you bear, it is the spontaneous and continuous expression of the life within from the vine.

Deontic: DUTY
Law of Sin and Death which the manifestation of self apart from God, and leads to death.

Works [of the flesh] you do [out of your own self apart from God]. It is faith in one's self, the self's abilities, self' righteousness. It is dependence upon our independence. It is the opposite of faith.

Upon this ground of self you cannot help but bear the consequences of separation, which are sin. No matter how dutious we see ourselves we are relying upon ourselves, our power, our wisdom, our understanding, our interpretation, our experience, our talent, our skill, our technique, our upbringing, our our our our our.

Light, Faith and Questions

A great example of this conversation of opposites is light. It is seemingly a wave, but it is seemingly a particle AT THE SAME TIME. How it manifests itself, which is how WE observe it, depends on how we interact with it.

God is love, and God is light. They are all analogs for Who He really is.

What does this paradoxical phenomena of light reveal about God?
One thing is evident, He is Who He is INDEPENDENT of us, the observer.

Does our observing change how He manifests...to us?

What does that have to say about faith?

If faith is receptivity, what is interaction? Is interaction receptivity in this case?

IF...God is love...

If God is love, then He cannot be boring. He is not boring.

Love is sacrificial. Love is searching. Love is anticipating. Love is creating. Love is embracing. Love is NOT boring.

So if God IS love, and God is eternal...