Dog or Cat; Cat or Dog

I've often heard, no often remarked, that men are like dogs and women are more like cats. Forget that categorization. That's not what I mean.

Dogs -- faithful, dependent, always following, child-like, curious, playful, and loyal.
Cats -- indifferent, independent, mature, etc...

Okay, here's the dichtomy. The Christianity (Churchianity) we've been given has one as the example of the internal life and the other as exemplary of the outer life. My contention is that the reality is the opposite.

Churchianity -- religion. Says that internally you are to be the cat and externally you are to be the dog.

You know the type...heck we are the type...internally we are to be stoic, unmoved, mature, and independent. Here's the problem, that's where our relationship with God is. That cat's normal attitude is, "What have you done for me lately." That's our attitude with God. So religion says that we are to be cats internally. BUT externally we are to follow after all the things on the outside. Especially religious leaders. We are to chase after everything that catches our religious attention and scare it away. Or run after it. Therefore because we are cats inside we MUST be dogs outside. We NEED outside validation, because inside we are cold, alone and aloof.

Christianity though is the opposite. On the inside we are dogs, it is here that we follow God in playful dependence, loyalty, excitement MERELY over His presence. And it is from this exciting internal relationship where eveything is provided for us, that we can be cats on the outside. We are not moved by the flash. We can be aloof to the manipulation attempts of others. We can have a "What have you done for me lately," outlook, in this sense, "Can you REALLY even do anything for me?"

Parable of Purchasing a Painting

Anyway, I was at Starbucks yesterday and clicked on the only Christian "radio station" I can listen to for more than a few minutes. Okay, I only listened to it for 5 minutes...that's more than a few though. ANYWAY, I heard a pretty cool story. So I have to do the only thing I can do. Steal it and use it for my own purposes. Mu-hahahaha.

Now, whether or not the content is true or not, it illustrates a great reality. If it's true and actually happened, cool. If not, it's a great parable.

William Randolph Hearst the great newspaper magnate of the first third of the 19th century used his prodigious fortune to collect art.

At one point he had his heart set on a certain painting. He was particularly annoyed at his underlings for what he perceived as their rather slow going in locating it. The man responsible said he had their best people working on finding it. They were scouring the whole earth searching.

Weeks went by, and Hearst's impatience didn't subside.

Then one day...

"Umm, sir we found it. We know the owner. We even know where it is."

"About time. Well..."

"It's you sir. You own it. It's in your warehouse. You've had it all along."

The point? As always, Christ. Let me explain...

You can shop around at any of the world's auction houses, the rich owners, and museums for the "painting" you seek. You can be looking for different teachings for sale, different methodologies cherished by the seemingly successful, or different doctrines in theological museums. But what you are looking for you already possess, you already have.

Ephesians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:30
He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

Colossian 1:26-27
the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Let's play it out...
Hmm, I hear at this auction house they have the painting, "DWJW: Doing What Jesus Would". At another they have this painting called "Driven (Ragged) by a Purpose". Interesting, but I'm looking for something else.

Let's try out the rich successful owners. The owner of a nice Georgian house in a ritzy neighborhood has "Tithe for life: The Method" painting. Across the cobblestone street another prominently displays his "Meditate Now to Know" piece right beside his "Quiet Time System" work. And then there's the rich owner who lives out in a country estate far away from the world who has a minimalist piece called "If you want to, it's BAD! Put that Down! Run away!".

Still nothing. Well, let's go to the theological museums, most are downtown.

There's the museum in a neoclassical building, well there are actually two buildings connected by a small creaky walkway, on buildings big and white and others small brown and overshadowed, it houses the piece "Dispensational". Another museum nearby is in a big non-descript modern box of a building, you have to sign all these promises to do old arcane things, it holds a piece called"Covenantal". Okay, let's try this rather gaudy museum with a lot of gold paint splattered on its plaster facade, it's famous piece is called "Word of Faith". Nope, not it. Well, there's this new postmodern museum on the other side of town that's got this crunchy alternative feel, their big painting is called "Emergent". And down by the river there's the museum that has fireworks every week...you know, for the kids...it's proud of its painting called "Charismatic".

But auction house after auction house you don't find it. No owner has it. It's not in any museums either. They each may have something familiar about them, but they are not IT.

Turns out you've had it all along.

You cannot find in other places what you already possess yourself. You cannot relate to, touch, hold, interact with something on the outside that you have in the inside.

Let's break out of the analogy. What we seek is a person, not an object. You can travel all about trying to BUY it with your time, your dedication, your commitment, and your best efforts at being a "good christian"...but it does not work. It cannot work. It must not work.

Eric Hoffer Quotes: Christian Remixed

Eric Hoffer wasn't a believer. He studied mass movements and revolutionaries and had some enlightening assessments, and damning truths. Upon reading some of his work and some of his aphorisms you start to see something peculiar...and something familiar. These revolutionary movements were remarkably similar to religion -- actually, I'd submit they were a religion, only, with the worship of the movement as the god, goal, and provider. Let's have some fun. Let's look at some of his quotes from the perspective of religion vs. Christ. Because religion INCLUDES the Christian Religion (as opposed to Christianity), we're not pulling any punches. And don't assume that Christian Religion means only Catholicism. No, we're not going to let us Protestants get away with that cop out. That goes as well for Methodists or Baptists or Presbyterians, or Episcopelians...or any other "ist" or "an".

Remember, you'll find no "how to's" here. Only WHO to. Seriously, not how to. It's Who to. I warned you...

"It is not at all simple to understand the simple."

The simplicity of it all being Christ is too simple for us to understand. Therefore we add all these religious things to something that is inherently simple. Here's a clue for us...If it's complex...it might not be Christ. Paul said, to know Christ and Him crucified. But what are all these hoops we tell each other to jump through? In order to "be a good Christian" you have to tithe, read your Bible daily, pray in the morning, pray before meals (like Father is saying, oh, didn't pray before eating that sushi, I'm going to have to zap you), attend this, and attend that, rededicate this, and don't touch that. Therefore you find yourself juggling (a very complex activity) all these HAVE TOs rather than simply holding His hand as you walk together through life. [And if you think I'm saying you SHOULD stop doing any of that stuff, just admit it, you don't get what I'm actually saying. But feel free to read on. :) ]

"We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails."

Often those of us so ready to teach you something (such that we cannot stop talking about it) are either enarmored of the truth (spirit) or working our flesh out in a public forum. I've found often what I REALLY want to teach is a private ail that I'm having a hard time trusting God to handle, so deceiving myself, I bring it into a public setting hoping that getting others to see it rightly will somehow fix me. Do you think I'm the only one who does this? [If you think I'm saying don't trust those who teach you.........I am. We are not called to trust one another, but God. Seriously, never told to trust your fellow man, believer or unbeliever. No, it's in trusting Father that we can love, accept, receive, listen, and learn from one another. But so often we put up our teachers as mediators between God and man, that's only for Christ. No matter how eloquent they are, how smart they are, how educated they are, and godly they appear. There is no one above you in the Kingdom. Your brothers and sisters are around you. Only Christ is Lord. It is the world's way with heirarchy and people lording over you.]

"Our quarrel with the world is an echo of the endless quarrel proceeding within us."
Christ is the Prince of Peace. We as believers have HIM in us. But when we cannot find that peace AS Him, we always find a quarrel without.

"What are we when we are alone? Some, when they are alone, cease to exist."
Do we take our life from others? Needing to be around others? Getting validation from others? Is being around and validated by others stronger than the reality that we are a child of God? Religion requires validation from others, with Father you are accepted in the Beloved (Christ).

"The awareness of their individual blemishes and shortcomings inclines the frustrated to detect ill will and meanness in their fellow men. Self-contempt, however vague, sharpens our eyes for the imperfections of others. We usually strive to reveal in others the blemishes we hide in ourselves."

Welcome to what legalism (Religion mascarading itself as Christianity) does. If you are focused on the Law, the does and do nots, you are focused on yourself. If you are focused on trying to be a good Christian, you are focused on yourself. But you tire and are ashamed of your failings, because that's all you'll see when your eyes are on you. Therefore you find it easy to judge others, ESPECIALLY on things that you know well in yourself. Think about it, when you make so many of those daily comments about others and their shortcomings, how would you be able to recognize them so effortlessly? BECAUSE IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE.

Our eyes are not on Christ, but on ourselves. We focus on the thing that kills, the Law (which is good and holy because it does it's job quite well) rather than the One who fulfilled the Law and is now our life.

"The capacity for getting along with our neighbor depends to a large extent on the capacity for getting along with ourselves. The self-respecting individual will try to be as tolerant of his neighbor's shortcomings as he is of his own."

If we realize that Christ and only Christ is our righteousness....if we know that God and only God is love...then how can we expect our neighbor to be that thing that only God is? God will not give His glory to another (His glory is WHO HE IS). No one apart from full dependence (called faith) on Him can manifest goodness, kindness, patience, or love. Therefore for those who do not know Him, what do we expect? Do we expect God to lie and allow them to generate goodness and love within themselves and out of their flesh?

"The uncompromising attitude is more indicative of an inner uncertainty than of deep conviction. The implacable stand is directed more against the doubt within than the assailant without."

Ever notice that you are most strident when you are uncertain, when you cannot quite reason and argue against what is coming against you...or your idol. hint hint hint. Yep, that's religion. Truth, a Person, is more than capable of defending Himself, and He is quite certain of Himself. Therefore often the issue isn't what's going on around us, but the simple fact that we don't yet trust the only One to trust. If we didn't doubt the Person, we'd be quite dispassionate about our uncertainty. When someone offers you a Jolly Rancher, but in their hand are 4 different colors and you are uncertain of which one you'll enjoy best -- are you insecure about it? Not really. Why? Because the situation is well under control, it's not a big deal. Well how is that any different than with Christ...for anything?

"To most of us nothing is so invisible as an unpleasant truth. Though it is held before our eyes, pushed under our noses, rammed down our throats- we know it not."

Biggest unpleasant truth. This whole "Christian thing". I cannot do it. Quiet times, tithing, gathering together, reading your Bible, attending events, being patient, being kind, be self-controlled, being wise, and being that odious thing we keep saying, "I want to be a good Christian," is impossible. Why does God allow me to keep running on that hampster wheel? ANSWER: How else am I going to learn I cannot do it?

We say, trust God, but listen closely, notice what comes not a minute after anytime that is said, a FORMULA for how to weasel your way into His blessing. In other words, I SAY trust Him, but I MEAN trust MY methodology.

"The technique of a mass movement aims to infect people with a malady and then offer the movement as a cure."
[The technique of a religion aims to infect followers with a malady and then offer the religion as a cure.]

Religion, even the Christian Religion, always offers itself as the cure. [Note, the true cure is Christ, a Person.] So if you find that what you're offered as a cure is based on reading something, saying something, doing something, attending something, rededicating something, giving something, or experiencing something. Perhaps it's not a Person you are being offered.

Let's back up...Religion, even the Christian Religion, infects people with shame and guilt (whether through the righteous Law or some hundred year old tradition handed down and assumed to be from God) and offers hoops to jump through as cures. It may put a name of a person on it, like the Christian Religion (as opposed to Christianity), kind of like the name on a product...we in the business call it branding. Por exemplo. "Dude, you got a Dell." Does not mean you have Michael Dell. Religion is the same way. Christianity is completely different, "Dude you have Christ. He's in you and you are in Christ." Religion will give you a box with a nice name on it, but inside it's packed with instructions. And once you "get it working", the batteries explode, because it's defective. [No insult to Dell. It's just the first brand that's named after a founder I could think of]

"Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves."
[Religious doctrine does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.]

Religion does not offer us anything new. It's just the same thing offered to us in the garden. We can be our own god, by eating from the tree of knowledge of GOOD and EVIL. So religion offers us a script for how to eat from the same tree of death. Rather than the Tree of Life, the Cross of Christ.

"The aspiration toward freedom is the most essentially human of all human manifestations."
["It was for freedom that Christ freed us." (Gal. 5:1)]

If we're still stuck in religion we immediately think something's wrong with that verse. Because that means we can do anything we want.

Think about it for a second. "The reason I didn't take heroin was because I thought I was going to hell. But now that I know I've accepted Christ...you're saying I'm free to take heroin?"

Does that sound like someone who knows their FREE, to you? You're back in bondage. Freedom means freedom. Did eating from the Tree of knowledge of GOOD and EVIL bring freedom or bondage? Did Adam and Eve say, "Wow, I can see what's GOOD and what's EVIL now. How freeing." No, they felt extreme shame. That's bondage. So if you constrain freedom to mean what you in your finite mind see and want, then perhaps your definition of freedom is a bit off. True freedom can only be found in the One Who is Life, Truth, and Love. Free to do as I want in a the 6 by 6 cell of my finite mind is not freedom.

But the "freedom" religion offers isn't freedom either. The heavy yoke is not freedom. It is not of Christ.

"The fanatic is not really a stickler to principle. He embraces a cause not primarily because of its justness or holiness but because of his desperate need for something to hold onto."

If we are not holding onto the Person of Christ...then we'll need to hold onto something. We laugh at those who hold onto the silliest of things. You heard many of the crackpot whacko ideas out there. Why are they weird? Because they are holding onto an illusion, something that is not really real. But that's the same with any religion, even the Christian Religion. Actually the Christian religion is even sadder. In that religion you are holding onto things ABOUT Christ rather than Christ Himself.

Here's a metaphor of it for you. The whackjob tries to ride the rabbit to work. Another a gerbil, and another a pineapple. Nuts. The Christian gets in his car (which is Christ) and drives 50 miles to work without breaking a sweat. The Christian Religionist has a PICTURE of a car and tries to ride to work in it. But it doesn't work. And so the Religionist seethes and rages and judges the other Christians because the cars they are riding in doesn't look like the picture the Religionist straddles. But a picture only captures one viewpoint of the car, from one angle at one instant of time. It's not the real thing. But the Religionist continues to burn in scorn and toxic incandescence, because inside the cars the people do not dress "properly", carry themselves "properly", eat "properly", or talk "properly". What's even sadder? Many Religionists have the car in their driveway, but refuse to drive it, because it does not look like the picture they are trying to ride to work. Now who is the craziest? [This is one of those stories where if you can think of many people who fit with the depiction of the "bad guy", then chances are you are "the bad guy."]

"The less satisfaction we derive from being ourselves, the greater is our desire to be like others."
[The less satisfaction we derive from being who we are in Christ, the greater our desire to be like others around us.]

Here's a corollary to this. We see some other great believer who can usually speak well...STOP STOP STOP. Why do we assume that the godly must be eloquent? That's how the world decides things, are we so fascinated with the ways of lost and blind that we constantly have to emulate them...unless so many of us are blind as well, d'oh! CONTINUING... and hear about their experience and what they did and how God powerfully met them in their need or for their success. And what is the NEXT thing we do (after the perfunctory, "Hallelujah"), we think of how WE can use the same method to get into God's good graces. Notice, the focus is NOT on God, but on ourselves. And notice we don't think of Him as a Person, but as a combination lock to be manipulated to get to the goodies. See rather than see something new about Who God is in God's relationship with this person, we barge past all that and try to see some new way to get the goodies.

We are so dissatisfied with how God loves and interacts with us individually, that we desire to have Father deal with us like someone else -- especially someone with a golden tongue.

Trust in confusion

Is it not that often in our relationship with God we are utterly confused by that which spirals around us. Don't the circumstances just befuddle us? Don't we ask, WHY GOD, WHY?!

But think of it this way. If a key component of the relationship is the building of trust, how else can it happen?

Huh, what?

Stay with me. Let's contrast 2 kinds of trust.

First, the one to be trusted proves themselves faithful. Say a parent in a confusing circumstance comes through and proves themselves so be worthy of trust.

Now in the second example, the parent, in the midst of all the tribulation explains step-by-step what is going on and how things are done.

It would seem both are the same thing, and if anything, the second is the better way. BUT, let's look deeper. In the second you see how things work, you are actually given a methodology. What you now have is a trust of the METHODOLOGY. In the first, you don't have the methodology, you just have the person.

So there is a trust in the person and there is a trust in a methodology. I submit that the first is more powerful than the second. Because by way of the first you can learn the second, but starting with the second you cannot make your way easily to the first.

Because I trust YOU, I can trust your methods.

But just because I trust a particular method has nothing to do with my trusting you. As a matter of fact, if you try to use a different method, or even if you have a different style to your method, I'm immediately suspicious of you. My trust is in method, not the person. Actually, relationally, I've boxed you in. You cannot interact with me unless you do things the way the methodology states. You cannot be creative, expressive, dynamic, interesting, and I'd submit loving nor natural. If I just trust a methodology, you must be a robot and a slave to my perceptions.

That's a different spin on asking, "WHY" all the time. Nothing wrong with doing so. But sometimes it's what's not said that tells you so much. Perhaps when we ask why and God doesn't answer and we slough off angry because we think He's being difficult or because we have some unconfessed sin...perhaps He's actually got a loving mischevious grin on His face that says in a singsong way "I know something you don't know." As in, "I'm showing you that you can trust Me, so I'm not telling you anything, well at least, not now, not in this instance."


Therefore, perhaps we can consider it great joy when we are struck down, vexed, and crushed by the events around us, for...if we look with the eyes of faith...we can see that He's building up our trust in Him. We would not have this trust if we ALWAYS know WHY.

What if: "Forgive them Father..."

When Jesus said, "Forgive them Father, for they do not know what they do."

I always approached it from the good cop bad cop perspective. Good Cop -- Jesus, was telling the Bad Cop -- Father, to take it easy.

But what if this is just a reaction that tells us A LOT about Who Jesus is, personally. Despite all the abuse heaped upon Him, the shame, and the pain He naturally, unconsciously, talks of forgiveness. Squeeze something, and you'll find what's inside. Crush something and you'll see what it's made of.

Yeah, but it's directed at Father, so Jesus is trying to get Father to not do something.

Or, or, or, it could be Christ is communing with and talking to someone Who He loves and needs in the midst of trial. Remember, Christ's relationship with Father is so intense and really real that He's before Father in the midst of all the ugliness. It would be surprising if He didn't say such.

Jesus' natural inclination is to always protect -- which is not to say He fears Father hitting the reset button -- but He just cannot help but express love.

You know what else is interesting? Jesus is not telling Father anything Father doesn't know. Father knows the intents and thoughts of those all around.

So what?

Nothing, it's just that it, in a small way, points to something important. God is interested in a relationship with us. It's not the information content that God desires, it's the heart. When a little kid, whether son or daughter, cousin, nephew, tells you something. How often is it new to you? RARELY. But it's more special, more precious than a broker stating how much you are worth today, because you've got a relationship, a heart, and not information.

How often do we relate to God just as information transfers. "Father tell me what to do." Or "Father, this is what I did for you today." It's sterile and has no life. Yes, there are transfers of information in relationships, but that does not encompass the fullness of the relationship. Unfortunately, we often approach God just this way, sterile, lifeless, perfunctory, and professional...in other words, fake.

What if: Sensitivity

What if love, agape love, frees you to actually be sensitive to the needs of others?

Can you be sensitive when you are worrying about yourself and your needs? Can it be that out of fullness we find sensitivity. When we are full of His love we are now free to be sensitive to others because we are not looking to get something out of others.

Rambling Thoughts: Obstacles to Loving One Another V

So, interestingly...or perhaps now, obviously. We will not have time for loving one another.

And worse yet, one another, we are rivals. Your success diminishes my success. Your attention diminishes focus and valuation placed on me. Spending time with you detracts from building up my value in the eyes of others.

This whole spiral of busyness is because we are "seemingly" bereft. We are without. We must do, acquire because we do not have. And here we come to love. You do not find love in bondage and in want -- for this is the environment of use.

There are three types of love in Greek I am told. Eros, which is self for self love. "I love because of what you can do for me." Or "I desire the highest and the best for myself." There is phileo, brotherly love, which is self for us. "I desire the highest and the best for you and me." Then there is agapeo, which is self for others. "I desire the highest and best for you." hat tip: Paul Anderson-Walsh of The Grace Project.

This is why agape is self-sacrificial because you are not in the picture. It's the other's highest and the best, not your comfort, not your validation, not your success, not your needs. It's self sacrifice and it's done freely because there is no impediment by the self.

Well, according to the "playbook." God is love (agapeo). Now wait a minute, what does that mean? That means He's NOT the Manipulator. A Manipulator is a self for self lover, it is Eros love. So He is the provider, He is the communicator, He is the Wisdom, He is the Way. He is the Giver and He is the one who values. We are not orphans.

No longer a playbook, the Scriptures are also reveal that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were before there was a creation. And it reveals that God is not changing. And we see in the Gospels a Father who is totally in love with the Son. And we see the Son completely intent upon the highest and the best for the Father. The Father was giving to the Son and the Son was giving to the Father, both with no thought to themselves.

In eternity past, they were the same. They needed nothing for themselves but just completely gave. God needs nothing, He is FREE to give. And Christ on earth trusted in the Father, and He was free to give because He did nothing except by way of the Father.

And in an immense act of love for us. Father and Son and the Holy Spirit have grafted us into their relationship.

All the things we need are covered IN HIM. There is nothing from others that we really need. We can REST IN HIM. We don't have to earn His affection. We have it no matter what we do. All our needs are covered and more. We can now give. We are now free to choose to give. We are now freed to follow Him in giving. We are now free to listen to Him in giving of our most precious possession. The only thing we cannot acquire more of...time.

Rambling Thoughts: Obstacles to Loving One Another IV

So we've seen that perhaps we see Father as untrustworthy, therefore not a provider, and not worth having a close relationship with, and not one who is worth listening to without reinterpreting.

So we are left with this identity. We are orphans. We have to do all ourselves. And there is a limited amount of time in the day to do. We need our 5 hours of sleep to just make it to the next 5 hours of restless dormancy.

We are alone and abandoned. Now, I'll take a turn, instead of going towards selfishness, I'll take the route marked insecurity.

What is insecurity? It's shame. One way to look at shame is a belief in one's worthlessness. We're orphans, so our Father, that Manipulator, doesn't value us, except perhaps what He can extract from us. But He's a Manipulator, so He values what He can extract more than us the containers themselves.

So the only option we have is our own valuation of ourselves, and others valuation of us. And how can others value us except by what they can see? And how can they see anything except by what we do? You are what you do, right?

Our value is based upon what someone else values. The Manipulator abandoned us, so all that is left is our fellow orphans. They too are left in the same predicament we are, so they too toil. And sense our value is based upon what others see, then we must toil too.

And now we move to fear. We cannot always keep up. We cannot know everything. There are so many ways in which we can fail. Ways in which we can lose value. We are sure of it, especially since it has happened so many times before.

We are orphans, the Manipulator is not there for us, so if whatever it is in the future
requires more than we have, we will definitely lose.

Rambling Thoughts: Obstacles to Loving One Another III

See perhaps our mistaken impression of our Father also brings something else related to busyness. Alienation.

We are not close to great manipulators. We are estranged, and it's a funky estrangement because the mask is one of closeness and affection. A heinous estrangement indeed.

So we don't believe He can be relied on, trusted, etc... And so we don't want to truly grow close to Him, we think we should look like we want to grow closer to Him, because the Bible says so. And we'd rather have a relationship with the Manipulator's playbook, than with the Manipulator himself. But that's just reasonable.

We'll read the playbook, because it's intelligence, it's like an accidentally unclassified document. "I can't believe He left this out. That's how we get what we want out of the Manipulator."

The Manipulator still speaks, but because we believe He is the Manipulator, we don't listen. And perhaps what we do hear, we filter into the paradigm of the Manipulator. He says, "I love you" but we twist it into, "Here's what you have to do to get my affection."

So we have to work hard finding our own way because we don't hear the way He goes. And forget actually walking the way with Him. We'd rather redefine walking with Him to something else, to following a path without Him. Because if the way is where ever the Manipulator goes, then it's best to follow another path. Of course if the Manipulator does randomly drop some goodies to those who do follow, perhaps we can follow Him, but way back. We'll run up when He drops something valuable. But walk with Him, no thank you. The closer you are to a manipulator, the more you are mesmerized into being manipulated.

Rambling Thoughts: Obstacles to Loving One Another II

Selfishness.

We are often busy because we need to provide for ourselves. We say God is our Father, but it's just aping what particular verses say. We think that by saying something from the Bible or agreeing with something from the Bible that that will in fact create belief in us, or even worse, create the reality we seek. But Scripture isn't a magic book. It's a love letter and a letter of introduction. The Old Testament was a letter of introduction of Christ -- of course the "highest" and the "best" and most "learned" missed that, and didn't see Christ whom it was all about, standing directly in front of them.

The New Testament is a love letter, inviting us into a tremendous relationship, with stories about those in that relationship, with revelations about Who this Person we're in love is.

Okay, enough of that rivulet of thought, back to busyness.

For some, we don't believe Father can nor will take care of us. And that's true for financial, emotional, psychological, and spiritual things. So we work hard on ALL of them.

But our experience says that He has not.

Does our experience actually say that? Or is that our interpretation of our experiences?

Say you find yourself with a relationship with a person whom you believe is manipulative and always has an agenda that leaves you holding the bag. Would you not second guess everything the person does? If the person was doing something that required three steps to complete. Would you not expect and believe evil of the very first step? And that would color the second step, and that would color the third step. Even if the final step was for your own good. You already have a history there in step one and step two.

Perhaps we do the same thing with God in His provision. And we are not taught any different either, even by well intentioned authorities. We are taught God is someone to be played, especially since He plays us.

If our father is someone to be gamed, then we will interact with him, not in love, but in manipulation. And since we assume He is manipulative too, it's a relationship of mutual manipulation. Manipulators don't provide, they only use.

Manipulation also requires a great deal of work to pull off. You have to have all the right plates spinning to keep it going.

What if Satan's a Defeated Foe III

the conclusion...

Heb. 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Things that can be seen are seen with the eyes. Things that are unseen, are seen by faith. Faith is like a spiritual camera. Yeah, it's hokey, just flow with the metaphor for a second.

When the enemy looms large it means one thing. The autozoom on your faith camera is off. Or perhaps you need to focus on something else. Say you are in that immense and beautiful jungle. You see a beautiful flower bush on a ridgeline a ways away. You set your camera up and zoom in to take a picture. But as you are getting the focus just right suddenly your whole viewfinder is filled with an orange and black form.

What you see (faith) is fully the Enemy. Here is what really isn't that effective. Focusing in FURTHER! And then analyzing the sinews and power in its legs and jaws.

Zoom out completely! See that the tiger is just a roaming item in an immense jungle.

Besides, the tiger is an immense camera hog. Why serve it with what it wants. There are other things to look at in the jungle. Come back to the bush later, it's not going anywhere. The tiger is. It's restless, frustrated, and knows its time is short.

Duty in Loving = Using

A friend has been wrestling with the John 15 upper room discussion on love.

What the passage seems to suggest is that loving God is connected with loving my brother. Plus you throw in the verse that says how can one say one loves God if one hates one's brother, and you have a very good case.

So...let's play with this a bit and see where it leads us?

The basic premise seems to be then that to love God I must love my brother. Or perhaps more forcefully said, I had BETTER.

But what has creeped into this is duty -- not the noble self sacrificing duty (if there is such a thing, I'm not completely convinced there is). What do I mean? I mean this, use of another.

In order for me to love God, I have to use you. Therefore I love you so I can love God. Well that begs the question, am I loving you? My love for you is a tool for my ultimate goal which is loving God. A worthy goal, I'm sure, but something seems to stink a bit, no?

From the root, we see the fruit. I'm using you to get to God...or at least to love Him. So... it's all about me. My interests are greater than yours, because I'm getting to God. Well if that's the root, then who's to say that getting to God, loving Him, is the value? Could I not say that getting to love Him is a tool as well?

If the using of another is not love, then my "loving" my brother is not love. And therefore I am not loving God. And even if I could get away with this "loving" would I even be loving God? Could I not be using Him too, all for my gain?

Rambling Thoughts: Obstacles to Loving One Another I (TIME)

A wise friend posited that there are two obstacles to loving one another: time and selfishness. Another wise friend desposited fear and insecurity as well. I'd have to wholeheartedly agree. And then I must approach it from a different perspective. They are two sides of the same coin. And travelling down this road we may run into an interesting perspective of what love is...

For the most part love requires time, time is the environment where love is manifested. (Any connection between God being eternal and God being love?)

Why DON'T we have time?

Because we're busy.

Why are we busy?

Because we're forced to be busy...ah but we are not. Therefore we choose to be busy.

Rather than stopping there and condemning ourselves, or going off on a rant about how evil, vapid, and selfish we are, let's go deeper.

Why do we CHOOSE to be busy? Or better yet, to do busyness.

See, we choose to do something because we think doing it will be better than things will be if we DON'T do it. Specifically, things will be better for us. And incidentally, that which we choose is better than all the other options we are aware of at the time of choosing.

Interestingly enough, I submit that at the heart of our busyness are the other issues we've mentioned: selfishness, fear, and insecurity.

What if Satan's a Defeated Foe II

...continued...

Before the Cross

Satan was like the Tiger in the bathroom. He stirred, we screamed.

After the Cross

A declawed, detoothed Tiger in a jungle. His power hasn't changed. He is still the most powerful created being. But the environment in which we are in is different. Satan is eclipsed by the immensity of the jungle. What is the Tiger to a rainstorm? To a Typhoon? What is one Tiger to 200 square miles of jungle? What is Satan to the immensity of Christ, our Father, the Holy Spirit? What is the toothless and clawless to the magnitude of God's love and the inheritance which is our relationship with Him?

What's the take away here? too be concluded...

What if Satan's a Defeated Foe

What if Christ actually did what He claimed to have done on the cross?

What if our fear of Satan would be like fear of the army of the Third Reich, right now in 2006?

Sure, once, for a time, was a powerful foe. But was defeated. The remnants of the defeat are fringe and fight through baneful bombasity and prolix propoganda.

How can this be so? too be continued...

What if: IF & THEN are done away with?

Old Covenant

If...

• You do this
• You don't do that

THEN...

• You get the goodies (blessings)
  
• You get the relationship

New Covenant

BECAUSE...

• Of what God has done
• Who He has made you
• He loves you
• He has made the way open to you
• You have the goodies

THEREFORE...you are free to truly love and truly live and move and have our being.

Feelings and Signals

We have a tendency to live in search of feelings rather than see that they indicate or signal something.

"I want to be happy." But dig deeper and what we usually mean is that we want to feel happy.

But feelings indicate realities that may not be visible.

Physical pain indicates realities that you may not be aware. If a spinal disc is out of place, you may experience GREAT pain. But if you adjust your life to eliminating that pain, feeling the absence of that pain, then you are skipping down the wrong path. The pain is BECAUSE something maybe amiss.

THE PAIN ISN'T THE POINT. IT IS POINTING.

This is true with physical pain the same way it is true with emotional or spiritual pain.

"Arg, but you are merely denying my pain!"

Quite the contrary. Your focus on solely eliminating the pain denies the pain. Pain's point is to point. You may be saying pain's point is to be removed. Pain's not there to disappear. It is suppose to disappear when the not-easily-seen reality is back to good.

"Ah, so you're saying pain means that I should stop wallowing in it and fix it!"

Actually, that's not what I said. I just said it points to an unseen reality. I'd hate to break it to you, but not every reality can be handled by your strategizing, planning, scheming, charm, whining or general manipulation.

Suppose you fell and received multiple fractures on your leg and arm. Does that say you have to set and fix your injuries?

"Well no, but I have to ask for help. And I'd better ask nicely."

Okay, why do you have to ask nicely? Because you are dependent upon another to help you, right. So really this issue is not what you need to do/act. But, that you need to trust.

So, the pointing is not always about you. Perhaps the pointing is toward another. Perhaps it's not a pointing to condemn. Perhaps it's pointing to indicate where you may need to rest your trust.

Hiatus MAY be over

It's almost six months since my last post. Since I had a strong urge to write anything.

Seems the theme and crux of what empassions me now is knowing God as He truly is.

Whether I do or not, never really sure. I'm bigger on knowing Him for Him, rather than knowing Him to be right about things about Him. Does that make any sense?

I'm finding out He's actually worth knowing and that having a relationship is worth it even a part from all that He can provide. Though I must admit I still need convincing and reminding of such. I have found though that I'm not so hard on myself about my mess ups as I used to be.

I have found I'm less motivated by what other people think about me. So much so that I tend to want to test those limits, especially when those limits seem (in my mind) to have a religious tinge to them. Perhaps with time that irksome edge, that subtle shock that I try to send will mellow.

What I thought would be happening now is for me to be more relational. But I've found I'm not much more so, seemingly. But I'm confident He knows what He's doing, so we'll see what He's up to in all this. He's the Author and Finisher, I'll rest in that.

Of course, that doesn't preclude driving people absolutely nuts in the process -- but I figure He's got that under control as well.

There is so very far to go, but I'm not anxious about the distance. He has some amazing treasures in the voids between the concrete events of maturation.

And so six months seems to be the length of time I can keep these fingers silent. I'm interested in seeing what wisdom can be dredged from my incoherent puffery. And puffery it is, because who could encapsulate the king in the vagaries, vanities, and vagueness of human language?

A Different Perspective on the Spiritual Disciplines

We see through the scriptures Jesus Christ getting up early in the morning to read the Torah...[record screeching]...I mean praying, communing with the Father. And therefore we try to emulate, copy, and imitate that. But what if that is the result of a truly deep and mature relationship?

We Christians can sometimes go so far into storming the gate we can miss the obvious. It becomes a sort of monkey see monkey do. But monkey does not understand, so monkey isn't really doing.

The funny thing is by emphasizing having your quiet times, making sure you read the Bible everyday, make sure you do this, and make sure you do that. All of which we "know" are truly spiritual things...what if that would be the equivalent of sleeping with someone on the first date.

Whoa, you might be saying...yeah I went there. Look here's the point, here's the perspective the metaphor is being used from -- the greater one knows another the EASIER and more natural the intimacy becomes. As God leads us [and we follow Him, not what someone else says, but only HIM] we get to know Him more and more. Remember, He's the "aggressor", not you. But what do we hear Sunday after Sunday? Do this to get this. If you didn't do that, don't expect to have this. Rather than, where is Father bringing you today? How are you seeing Him leading you into a deeper relationship with Him?

See our focus is almost ALWAYS on what we have to do. Even those who claim to be most biblically based are often the most self-focused. And because they know self-focus is biblically wrong, they wrap themselves up with the Bible and Chistianese language to cover up the fact that they still have themselves at the center and only talk a little about God.

As He brings us closer to Him we may find we naturally tend toward spending time with Him. Do you have to schedule time with those you love passionately? Or is it your schedule that makes way for the person? When you're in love, don't you find yourself doing different things and having comfortable habits? Isn't it sharing of life in ALL it's ups and downs, ins and outs, comforts and adventures, certainty and risk?

It's not about being comfortable...

It's about being free.

Whom the Son frees, is free indeed. (John 8:36)

It was for freedom that Christ set us free...(Galatians 5:1a).

Unintentionally Christian: Singing to Him

It's suppose to be a guy singing to a girl. But is it just me, or is it like our hearts singing to Him during those times He seems so close in our struggles. It's amazing how freeing it is to see Him, even in those things that are not even meant for "good." He can truly be on our minds in weird places and unexpected ways.

Farther Down
by Matthew Sweet

Into you so far our words go
so much clearer then you hear
into you goes everything I know
no one else knows how I feel

farther down I'm desperate for you
where you never have to know
farther down I'm still without a clue
just something, something takes my pain away

only chance can change my fortune
so I'm not sure why I try
as if I could swim the ocean
as if you could start to fly

farther down I'm desperate for you
where you never have to know
farther down I'm still without a clue
just something, something takes my pain away
something takes my pain away
something takes my pain away
farther down I'm desperate for you
where you never have to know
farther down I'm still without a clue
just something, something takes my pain away
something takes my pain away
something takes my pain away
something takes my pain away

Infancy and Maturity

• An infant consumes, the mature gives.
• Baby eats, a parent provides (feeds).
• Infants are consumers of life. The mature are givers of life.
• The new disciple learns life. The mature discipler points continuing and solely to Life, Christ Jesus.

Tangled Conversation: To the Lens

Here's an old quote from May 19th. "A Christianity anchored in meetings as its foundation for our expression of life will become performance based and focused. Performance based in our expectations of what those meetings should achieve, and therefore performance focused in our expectations of the people attending those meetings." There's a point I'd like to illustrate, shall we play Gracehead-Lawhead? I'll be Gracehead, you be Lawhead.

I'm game. I'll start....okay, let me get in character...and you do know I can never stay in this character more than a few minutes, anyway...okay...ready...Hey, you're saying we should not have meetings.

No.

So we should have meetings, just not focus on performance.

No.

So we should not have meetings, except when necessary.

No.

Then I don't get it, what should we do?

I can't tell you.

What! Why not. You think you're better than me? Why can't you tell me?

I cannot tell you until you can receive it. I cannot tell you until you are willing to see it. Until you are willing to drop your lens, and pick up my lens. The problem wasn't in anything you said, except for one word, should. Get rid of that, and you'll find you have less trouble understanding what I'm saying.

Get rid of should? So you're saying I should stop using should?

Well, let's not turn this conversation into a fugue (hat tip Hofstandler) of self-referencing and strange loops. I'm talking about the attitude and dependency behind the should. There's nothing wrong with the word "should" itself, but it's overuse, well strike that, misuse reveals an inner attitude. And it is this attitude that blinds you to seeing what I'm talking about. I guess the best way I've found into discussing this is to shock you into questioning one of your secret favorite words.

Well, what else is there? There is should and there is should not. There is right and there is wrong. Unless of course you're one of the benighted moral relativists who don't believe there is right or wrong.

Interestingly enough, I'd say the moral relativists are right in that they have it exactly wrong. It's sort of like you have a yard with a fence going through the middle of it. One side is the right side, the other side it the wrong side. What else is there here? What else is obvious, but we miss? It's that there is ground below the yard and sky above it. The moral relativists goes subteranean in their leaning. Rather than right and wrong they define it as whatever you want -- now this is simplistic. There is another way, and it's above the yard, the sky.

Okay, interestingly illustration. What's your point?

For Christian you can be above the yard of right and wrong. Above should and should not is IS.

That's crazy talk!

Not really. Above the Law of Sin and Death is the Law of Life. Above the Law there is the I AM. The one Who is. The Truth. Christ. The one you are in and the one Who is in you.

Intriguing, go on, you have to make some semblance of sense eventually.

Well, does Christ worry about shoulds and should nots? Or does He just do? His character is perfect love, so does He bother with the oughts and ought nots? No, that's ludicrous.

So what are you saying?

A preoccupation with should and should not in Christian community is an occupation NOT with Christ. It is a focus on rules, regulations, etc... which is a self-focus. It is not watching Christ. You cannot be watching Christ if you are watching yourself and others follow the rules.

So what should we do?

When God shows you what He's already done and who you are to Him, then it won't be so much a question of what you should do. You'll see and you'll know.

So meetings?

I don't know, seems kind of small compared to the whole Christ thing?

Yeah, definitely. Get Him, and you've got the meeting question.

Yep, and frankly every other question one could argue. I mean, if you have the one who IS love, what else do you need?

All in all. Christ is all in all.

Couldn't say it better myself.

What if: Ministry

Based on a great article at In Search of a City

"The newborn Christian, who is “unskilled,” may require TEMPORARY nurturing toward this end. I lay great stress on the word “temporary,” as it speaks of the limitation of time or season. In truth, ALL ministry is temp-work. It is not a steady job. It is to work yourself out of a job. It is as quickly as possible to establish the new Christian’s dependency upon Christ—never allowing them to place their trust in anyone but Him."

What if all ministry is temp-work?

What if discipleship is ministry?

What if discipleship is to work yourself out of a job?

What if this job destruction is a death?

What if their intimacy and dependence on Christ is the ALL?

What if our approach is more steered toward having people dependent on us?

Prayer: Always talking?

Are we so uncomfortable with our Father that one of us must ALWAYS be talking? Can we not just enjoy the others being? How amazing would it be if their presence was enough? Or if even knowing that they are there is enough, whether we EXPERIENCE their presence or not.

Christ, the DNA of the Believer, the Church

Had a thought along the lines of biology, let's see where it goes. It is from the DNA that a thing is a thing. That a thing grows, repairs itself, matures, etc... It is because of the DNA that a body recognizes friend or foe.

Each cell in a body constantly goes back to the DNA for all it's activity (yes, I know the mitochondria is a little different, let's not quibble over small matters). Cells that do not die, becomes diseased or worse become cancerous. They do not have the same DNA, they are looking at something else, something that is similar but corrupted. It is a pseudo-DNA, a replacement for the real DNA.

If a cell does not go back to the real, it will go back to something. A replacement...an idol perhaps?

It's a metaphor, and a good one for the believer as well as the church, no?

Why we want our relationships to be painful, and what it tells us.

Relationship Stacks
Let's suppose your problems with others are peeves. Let's say you can hold a list or stack of 12 pet peeves about a person. Suppose they change the top one. Are you happier? Yes, for a short period of time, but the 2nd worst peeve now pops up to become the first, and the bottom of the stack is empty space. Well that empty space is easily and naturally filled by you. Remember you could only hold 12 pet peeves at a time, you have an empty compute cycle, an empty bin, a vacuum. Spend 5 more minutes with the person and sure enough, number 12 will pop into the stack. So there is no real improvement in the relationship dynamic at all.

Why? Self-centeredness. Sure they "fixed" their problem but you still have to same stack, just a different mix. It's the same thing, it's the same song, a different beat. It's a remix, it's a cover, but it's the SAME thing.

Relationship and love -- it's about looking beyond and not on the stack. It is not having a stack, for is love a recorder of wrongs? Why? Because love does not NEED the other person to give back, to transact. Love is from one already satisfied. If you are not already satisfied then the relationship is not love, it is use. Now there is mutual use, it's called business. And in relationships it is usually referred to as prostitution (I use this illustration for shock value, it's sometimes useful to amp the volume on the mundane to ear-piercing decibels). But in order to truly love one party must be satisfied or at least their source of satisfaction is not found in any way upon the object of their love, with the other party. Now they are truly free to shower their object (the other party) with true love. Unconditional. Whether there is anything intrinsically loveable about the object is immaterial.

So in our relationships how can we DO this? We cannot. Are you completely satisfied in and of yourself? Are you not dependent on sooo many things physically, mentally, financially, and emotionally? So a system based on needers will find that none are filled, none satisfied (current pop culture just makes it obvious, but we've been building the system since we started eating weird fruit in nice places).

No, we cannot look to one another, nor to creation for our needs, for our true needs to be met. We look to God, who DOES NOT NEED US. He DOES NOT NEED ANYTHING. He truly is LOVE because without needing us or anything He created anyway. And so it can only be through a union and a relationship and a walk with Him that true love can manifest. We are vessels of His love. Vessels hold something that comes from the outside and is then placed inside themselves. And when something on the outside sees fit, they dispense what is inside to something outside them. We are vessels of love, for we are temples of God, we are walking epistles, we are earthen vessels holding inside a tremendous treasure (and that treasure is NOT a thing, but a Person).

And so it is only in and through and by Christ that true love manifests. Otherwise it is going to be mutual use or one-sided manipulation. Eventually the mutual use will break down, the business merger diverges and collapses. Eventually the prostitute leaves to go on to the next trick and the John to the next fix. Eventually the object of manipulation is fully tapped and the manipulator moves on to another mark. Either way the party ends.

So why do we want our self-centered relationships to be painful? Because they are not real, they are not in and of Christ. Why would we want an illusion to feel good for anything more than a season (if it didn't feel good at all, we'd never do it; no one, well few, are tempted to become gluttons with Castor Oil, but Pop Tarts, heck yeah I'm tempted and they seem sooo gooood...for a season).

Grace Based Action?

Faith in Him => Rest in Him => Action by Him => Action through us

Random Thoughts: Worldviews

Can a generation capture God? Can they fully see Him in all His manifold wonder? Can they integrate His glory into human language? It is not that they are so much as wrong, but their perception is incomplete and it is proven so by the time the next generation is up and thinking for itself [could be the next mind or worldview]. And so we look back in history and see a progression. Is it into fullness? I don't know, for how can one progress from the finite into the infinite?

A riddle and a parable

The progression of worldviews -- is it that 2nd grade is better than first? Does a second grader have a fuller knowledge of reality than a first grader? Is the second grader closer to knowing more about everything? No, not really. But they are closer to maturity. Maturity does not relate to knowing more -- though we think so. No, it is about being more. And so it is with man and so it is with His church which is in the world but not of it. Both grow side by side and in many ways similarly. Be careful, do not pull them up before harvest lest you pull up the good with the worthless.

A Few Questions

• Should we even have a worldview?
• Should we just be able to engage another's worldview?
• Can our progression be the same song, different beat? What if worldviews were just remixes of the same old song?
  

A Different Perspective on making the RIGHT Decision

Is a child too concerned over whether playing in the sand or playing with toys inside will significantly impact their identity in the future? They know they are safe now and will be safe then. They are confident in their decision because their confidence is not in decision making -- it is in their environment that their parents provide for them to inhabit and their comfort in that, is in knowing their parents. Knowing that their parents love them and care for them and accept them.

It's not that the sandbox or the toys will yield a better future -- no, each will yield abandonment to the moment, an adventure. Parents lovingly let the child choose, for there isn't a right or wrong here -- there is just life. The problem would be not choosing life, not choosing to inhabit it, not choosing to see that they are loved and free.

Does this mean the parents do not guide? Does it mean that they do not let pain or discomfort enter the environment? No, but the parent knows, protects, and provides. There is the marvelous in even the foolish and painful.