Posts Tagged ‘Relationship’

What Not to Do

Posted: January 7, 2017 in Bible Answer Man, End of Religion, Your God Journey
Tags: , , ,
0

Caveats and Provisos

I have several friends who often reach out to me as a kind of “Bible Answer Man.” I enjoy answering their questions whenever possible. Something that happens rather frequently however, is that I’m not always so sure my friends realize that they are not necessarily asking simple questions, and therefore texting or messaging an answer isn’t really practical. This happened earlier today, when one such friend messaged me that he had finished reading a significant portion of the Old Testament and was struck by how violent and ungodly the history of the Jews was at times. The following is my reply—a highly condensed summary of Old Testament history and at least one lesson we can take away. I hope you enjoy it.

 

What Not to Do

One of the keys to understanding the Old Testament in general, and the Old Covenant in particular, is that it is often more an example of “What Not to Do,” rather than “What to Do.”

From the beginning (Garden of Eden), God instructed humanity that they were free to do what they wanted (free to eat of any tree in the garden; Gen. 2:16), as long they understood that He alone determines what is good and what is evil (prohibited to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; Gen. 2:17), and that the consequences of humanity setting its own standard for good and evil would result in calamity (surely die; Gen. 2:17).

Large portions of the Old Testament are stories that are examples of this paradigm working itself out in the material realm—humanity trying to direct and control their lives independent from God—and the result is exactly what is to be expected—confusion, frustration, and all manner of problems.

The Hebrews, despite being God’s “chosen people” were no exception.

God sent them a deliverer to free them from slavery in Egypt, and yet once free they complained to go back (Numbers 11). This lack of faith in God’s way of doing things caused them to wander in the wilderness for 40 years.

Once the 40 years were over and a new generation came of age that had the faith to face the challenges of the Promised Land, the Hebrews crossed the Jordan River to enter the Land.

Under Joshua’s leadership the nation generally prospered, but also saw its fair share of problems (for doing things their own way), like the defeat at Ai (Joshua 7).

Next, the Hebrews entered the period of the Judges. A particular phrase that is found twice in the book of Judges characterizes this period—“Every man did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17:6, 21:25). Independence from God–not a good idea.

The end of the Judges came because the Hebrews demanded a king (1 Sam. 8). A king was not God’s intention at this time, and the prophet Samuel, speaking to the people on God’s behalf, warned them what would happen if they had a king (1 Sam. 8:10–22).

The first king, Saul, was a mixed bag. He wasn’t necessarily a good king, but he was good at “being king.” He was a strong leader, and the nation of Israel generally prospered under his leadership. But in keeping with our theme, he sought to do things his own way, relied on his own abilities, and eventually paid the ultimate price for it.

The second king was David, who is the Hebrew king by which all others are judged. He was a valiant warrior, a strong leader, and quite the musician. And yet despite his glowing reputation, he was acutely human and committed grievous sins including adultery and murder. The key distinction about David, and the precise reason why he was a great king, was because his heart always (re)turned to God.

The third king was David’s son Solomon. Solomon was a strong leader, but again had equally strong human weaknesses. He had 700 wives and concubines (the Old Testament equivalent of a porn addiction), many of whom were foreign. His foreign wives brought along their foreign gods, which would prove to be Solomon’s demise. Despite building the renowned Jewish Temple and having extraordinary wisdom, Solomon was undone by his human weaknesses.

Under all three kings, the Hebrew nation was united. This unity was not artificial, it was genuine, but it also relied heavily upon the strength and leadership of the Hebrew kings, and Saul, David, and Solomon were all strong, capable, if not always exemplary, leaders.

By the end of Solomon’s reign, the Hebrew nation had defeated their enemies, built the Temple, developed a flourishing economy, become the center of the civilized world, and achieved peace and unity. Israel had reached the pinnacle of its strength and influence. The problem with reaching the top however is that the only way to go is down.

When Solomon died, his son Rehoboam assumed the throne. He was young, inexperienced, arrogant, and worst of all, prone to following bad advice.

Rehoboam’s nemesis was a young leader named Jeroboam ben Nebat. According to the Talmud, he was “an extraordinarily gifted, superior person with an abundance of charisma, as well as a great organizer and, above all, a magnificent scholar.”[1]

Had Rehoboam genuinely sought the best interests of the people, the people, and even Jeroboam himself, would have likely united behind him. But in one of the most colossal blunders of all time, Rehoboam ignored the sound advice of older wiser men, and listened only to the advice of younger less experienced men who told him to deal harshly with the people. Realizing that Rehoboam was not listening to them or even his own father’s advisors, ten of twelve tribes declared their independence and made Jeroboam their king. Only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained loyal to the House of David. Jeroboam ruled over the ten tribes of the “Northern Kingdom” called Israel, while Rehoboam ruled over the two tribes of the “Southern Kingdom” called Judah. Both men claimed to be God’s chosen king.

Judah’s capital remained Jerusalem, while Israel established their capital at Samaria. This fact is critical because the Torah commands all able-bodied males to engage in three pilgrimage festivals each year. Jeroboam knew and therefore feared allowing citizens of the Northern Kingdom (Israel) to travel to Jerusalem for the feasts. He knew that if he allowed it, the hearts of the people would “turn back” to Rehoboam. Consequently, he made the fateful decision to forbid his citizens from travelling to Jerusalem, and as an alternative established idolatrous worship practices in the Northern Kingdom. All subsequent monarchs of the Northern Kingdom of Israel followed Jeroboam’s lead.

In the Southern Kingdom, however, good and bad kings were cyclical. Every other generation or so a good king would step forward and strengthen the faith of the people. This never happened among the kings of the Northern Kingdom. They followed the mold of Jeroboam for the next 200 years.

In 721 B.C., the Assyrians invaded the Northern Kingdom (Israel), razed Samaria, and deported their leading citizens.

In 605 B.C., the Babylonians invaded the Southern Kingdom (Judah) and after three separate sieges, eventually destroyed the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., and carried the bulk of the population into captivity.

Both the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities were the result of the Hebrews turning way from God and doing things “their way.”

God’s intention, as expressed in the Everlasting Covenant cut by the members of the Godhead before the foundation of the world, has always been to be a loving Father to His children—approachable, kind, compassionate, and most of all—intimate—directly and easily accessible to each individual child of God. It is humanity that has made things difficult by defaulting to the (wrong) idea that God is distant, separate, unapproachable, and judgmental. Humanity exacerbated this problem by always inserting “something” between themselves and God, whether a person (priest/mediator) or a system (code/religion), or both—when God’s intention has always been relationship—unmediated, dynamic, and organic.

The violence, unrest, idolatry, and all manner of chaos that is rife throughout the Old Testament can be traced to a single source—humanity attempting to go its own way independent from God. The result has been that we have always attempted to create God in our image—always wanting him to do things the way we want them done. Classic “What Not to Do.”

Jesus Christ came to set that right.

 

Footnotes:

[1] Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 102a.

Religion v. Relationship: Make Yourself at Home

Posted: September 25, 2016 in End of Religion, Your God Journey
Tags: , ,
0

“C’mon in, take your shoes off, make yourself at home!”

Don’t you love to hear those words? I think it’s rare to hear those words from someone who doesn’t really mean it–it is almost always a sign of at least genuine hospitality, frequently friendship, and do I dare say it? Love.

This is in contrast to those friends who ask you to take your shoes off because they don’t want you tracking anything in on your shoes. No disrespect intended–I have many true friends who ask this of me. But the contrast in inflection remains nonetheless.

Why is it then, when we envision Moses and the episode at the burning bush, that we always imagine God’s booming voice demanding that Moses take his shoes off?

Frequently in the Old Testament, God is portrayed as a “holy,” terrifying presence. When God descended on Mount Sinai, the people responded by telling Moses, “you go talk to that, come back and tell us what He said, and then we’ll do it–but we’re not going anywhere near that mountain.”

But I have come to realize that this is primarily perception. Without our shame being dealt with by the accomplished work of Christ on the cross–we perceive God’s presence as terrifying.

But then that’s exactly the point isn’t it?

Religion requires a buffer between God and man–a system that keeps us comfortably insulated from direct contact.

But if our shame has indeed been dealt with once and for all by the cross, then God is an inviting, comforting, intimate presence. And His holiness, instead of inspiring “reverence,” (read: fear) invites us home?

What if our perception of the burning bush was off? And what God meant was…

“C’mon in, take your shoes off, make yourself at home!”

Unaware

Posted: November 24, 2015 in End of Religion, Your God Journey
Tags: , , , ,
0

On the road from religion to relationship there was one specific discovery that caught me particularly unaware. And when I make this statement, I have chosen the word unaware quite deliberately. I considered using the words off guard, or surprised, or unexpected, but I think the word unaware works best. This is because I wasn’t surprised or caught off guard by the content of this realization, but by the depth and tragedy of its effect. I was aware of the fact of the matter, but I was unaware of just how deeply we are affected by it. I was unaware of just how deeply affected the human race was, and is, by the Fall.

Without going into unnecessary detail concerning the machinations of the Fall, the realization I arrived at is that humanity was rendered dysfunctional by the Fall, and by this I mean deeply, deeply dysfunctional, not the run-of-the-mill dysfunction I was taught in Sunday School.

Furthermore, and what I mean by “run-of-the-mill” dysfunction, is that I believe much of mainstream Christianity is either unaware of this fact, and/or utterly unwilling to admit it. (After all it is very uncomfortable to admit that we aren’t guilty of minor deviations from normal behavior, but are in fact wholly wrong-headed). As a matter of fact, I believe this is one of the root causes behind religion, and therefore the necessity of the journey from religion to relationship. Much, if not most, of mainstream Christianity is Christianity practiced as religion (not what it’s supposed to be), and not as the relationship with God it is intended to be, because we do not really address our deeply dysfunctional nature. Once “saved,” we proclaim that we are new creations in Christ (which is true), but then we blithely continue on our way, living entrenched within our religious paradigms, swapping out New Testament terminology in place of secular psycho-babble, and declaring we are “living the abundant life,” when not much has really changed.

I also came to realize that one of the areas where this hits the hardest is that fallen/dysfunctional humanity is incapable of formulating a correct mindset concerning the true nature and character of God. And furthermore, we unknowingly carry our erroneous viewpoints about God into our new faith when we get saved. This is particularly tragic because there are hundreds of verses in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, that can be used to proof text and therefore “validate” our dysfunctional point of view, thereby camouflaging wrong ideas about God in biblical language.

One way that we incorrectly view God is that because he is transcendent (which he is by the way—don’t get me wrong), we “translate” that into distant, detached, and even unsympathetic. He is “out there” somewhere, watching, and ticking off merits and demerits on his divine scorecard. This comes from viewing God as a divine judge overseeing a judicial paradigm, dispensing divine justice. This is an Old Covenant/religious view of God, not a relational one. The relational viewpoint is of God as father. And while we all are more than aware of this label (father), do we really look at God as a father, our father? Or do we look at him as divine judge, but we just call him father? Likewise, we tend to overemphasize God’s omnipresence and are only casually aware of his indwelling presence. While both are true, the New Covenant/relational paradigm is father, and indwelling. Think about it—God can be omnipresent and a divine judge without the slightest hint of real relationship.

This is the crux, pun intended, of the revolutionary paradigm shift that happened at the incarnation.

Now, do you see what I did there? I used the word crux to get you to think that the focal point of the paradigm shift between the Old and New Covenants is the cross. And while the temporal cross in Judea is the source of the blood of the New Covenant, it is the blood shed on the eternal cross before the foundation of the world that provides the blood of the Everlasting Covenant. Additionally, we (again) tend to see the blood of the temporal cross as satisfying a judicial paradigm—that Jesus was the sacrifice required by God to forgive the sins of the world (a paradigm that is demonstrably incorrect, but that is a different topic for different day). But, it is the blood of the Everlasting Covenant that is relational in nature because the blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world set forth God’s deliberate intention to exit eternity, enter time and space, and dwell with his creation. In a word, the incarnation is the focal point of divine-human relationship.

Unfortunately the relational nature of the incarnation has been eclipsed by our judicial/religious mindset, reducing Jesus to little more than a distant on-looker as opposed to God with us. In our judicial paradigm the cross has replaced Jesus himself as the point of eternal significance.

Jesus is the place where the divine and human are united. Jesus is the place where God and humanity come together, connect, and relate (there’s that word again). The eternal purpose and ultimate intention of the Godhead is that the eternal son would become human so that he could mediate the divine life to us, with us, in us.

Another tragedy of the judicial paradigm is that justification has been over-emphasized almost to the exclusion of adoption—again, a systematic paradigm instead of a relational one. Our notion of “the Gospel” is all about humanity’s need for forgiveness. This is of course critically important because we all need forgiveness, but it falls short of the point—forgiveness paves the way for adoption. Forgiveness as a legal paradigm fulfills Jesus’ obligation and then conveniently sends him on his way—ascended to the right hand of the father, and no longer needed. Adoption however, is relational and speaks to our true identity as sons and daughters of God—continually connected to divine life.

Finally, and probably most alarming to many of us (if we are caught unaware) is our perception of God’s holiness. If we were to ask 100 Christians to name one characteristic about God’s nature, it is indubitable that the vast majority, if not all, would say, “God is ‘holy’.” But again, this reveals an alarming discrepancy in our understanding about God. This is yet another example of viewing God through a judicial paradigm common to religious thought. In our minds, holy means moral perfection (read: legal perfection). Because we have not been taught a relational paradigm about God to begin with, and we default to our fallen (old man) religious nature and espouse a religious/judicial mindset, we are completely unaware (there’s that word again), that the single most fundamental truth about God is not that he is holy, it is that he is relational. The true definition of holiness is the expression of beauty, joy, passion, and love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in their relationship, harmony, and intimacy together.

God’s eternal purpose and ultimate intention, as expressed in the Everlasting Covenant, cut by the members of the Godhead before creation, is that God desires to share himself with his creation. Nothing fulfills the purpose of God more than to receive a revelation of his love and then have that love transform us, and lead us through the rest of our lives as a visible expression and ezer kenegdo of the invisible God in the earth.

Abstract: Religion v. Relationship

Posted: November 13, 2015 in End of Religion, Your God Journey
Tags: , , , , ,
0

Have you ever heard a minister say…?

“Christianity is not a religion—it’s a relationship.”

If you have, did the minister who said this ever take the time to explain what this statement means in a substantive way? Did he or she “unpack” this statement so that it can be easily understood and then readily disseminated to others? Or, frankly, did the minister making this statement presume that the meaning is self-evident, and that the statement accurately represents the status quo—(that most Christians are presently experiencing relationship with Christ as opposed to religion)?

In my experience, the phrase “Christianity is not a religion—it’s a relationship,” has pretty much always been used as kind of punch line and was never followed with the kind of substantive explanation I would have expected, or at least hoped for—for example, “If Christianity truly is a relationship, and not a religion, maybe we should camp out here for a while and really explore what this means and what it looks like.” Instead, when asked to explain in more depth, the responses I received, while essentially accurate, tended to be superficial, such as, “Religion is the form—but not the power,” or “Religion is a set of rules—but relationship is intimacy with God.” Again, in my experience, no minister I have heard make this statement ever really made a significant attempt to explain it in a meaningful way, but instead appeared to be operating under the assumption previously mentioned—that the meaning of the statement is self-evident, and that current state of affairs reflects this obvious if under elucidated paradigm. In addition, every time I tried to press for a deeper explanation, I was met with even more “non-answers.” And when I pressed a little harder still, it was made quite clear to me that my questions were making people uncomfortable and were therefore becoming unwelcome.

Now I am not the kind of person who is deterred by a lack of answers—in fact I am essentially the opposite. If I don’t get an answer to a question, I don’t get discouraged, I get determined. So despite the lack of answers and cooperation, I set off to find the answers “myself”—so to speak.

Because this statement…

“Christianity is not a religion—it’s a relationship.”

… deserves to be explained.

This series of essays, in large part, is the record of my journey from religion to relationship.

So, if Christianity truly isn’t a religion, and truly is a relationship, what does this mean exactly?

The statement seems to imply that “relationship” is better than “religion”—so if this is true, why is it true? What are the distinctions between the two (Christianity as religion versus Christianity as relationship) and why does it matter?

And finally, and maybe most importantly—even at face value, this statement appears to imply that living in a relationship with Jesus Christ is not only possible but preferable to this thing called religion—and that the word religion, as used in this context, is pejorative (expressing contempt or disapproval). So if this is true—how do we “do” this? How do we live in relationship with Jesus Christ—and not in religion?

You see—life in Christ is not just about new or different ways to “do church,” or learning new “abundant life principles,” or learning to “exercise our spiritual authority.” Frankly, Christianity is not about us inviting Jesus into our lives as much as it is about the fact that Jesus has invited us into his life—the life he has shared with the Father and the Holy Spirit from all eternity. Jesus has invited us to share his relationship with the Father—in fact to live in his relationship with the Father.

This relationship (there’s that word), the eternal relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is the origin and exemplar of all relationships. This is what sets Christianity apart from all “religions” and from Christianity practiced as a religion—God, the Godhead—is relational by definition, and the expression of this relationship—God’s original thought, eternal purpose, and ultimate intention—is the reason for creation itself.

Finally, nothing fulfills the eternal purpose, ultimate intention, and original thought of God more than to receive a revelation of His love, then to have His love overwhelm you, then transform you, and then lead you through the rest of your life as a visible expression and perfect counterpart (ezer kenegdo) of the invisible God in the earth.

Unscientific Hermeneutics

Posted: October 28, 2015 in End of Religion, Your God Journey
Tags: , , , ,
0

I love the Bible–I really do. I enjoy hermeneutics as well–the science and art of interpreting the scriptures. This entry however is about “unscientific hermeneutics”–in other words, this is not about a rigid set of principles, it’s about an observation I have made between those who seem to interpret scripture from a religious mindset and those who interpret scripture from a relational mindset.

I recently saw a Facebook meme by a high profile minister. It read:

“Those who repent will be given the grace to change.”

Now this may be true if we are speaking of an unbeliever confessing Christ for the first time. I say “may” because one could argue that God gave them the grace to repent in the first place. And therein lies the rub.

If we are speaking about a person who is already in Christ, then this quote is inaccurate and reflects a religious mindset. Once a person is saved, then the default paradigm of being in Christ is…

The accomplished work of the cross supplies the grace we need that enables us to repent and change.

If we have already been saved and yet still have to repent in order to receive grace, the cross was in vain.

Religion teaches us that there is something we must do and then God can respond. Relationship teaches us that God has already done everything that needs to be done in Christ and therefore supplies us with the resources necessary to fulfill what He has called us to do. In other words, religion essentially gets it backwards.

As I have said in previous entries, that if there could be such a thing, the Old Covenant would be the perfect religion–it was written by God, but is kept by human effort. And furthermore, that much of Christianity is merely Old Covenant paradigms veiled in New Covenant terminology. Jesus did not come to start a new religion, or perfect an existing one–He came to put an end to religion in favor of relationship.

So here are a couple more doctrines that got flipped at the cross.

Old Covenant: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all they soul, and all thy strength.
New Covenant: Behold, I give you a new commandment–to love others as I have loved you.

Old Covenant: Give and it will be given to you, pressed down, shaken together and running over.
New Covenant: Freely you have received freely give.

So here is my unscientific hermeneutical principle: If you suspect that something you hear smacks of religion, try flipping it over and see what you get.

Defining Relationship

Posted: August 11, 2015 in End of Religion, Your God Journey
Tags: ,
0

The name of this blog is The End of Religion: Unpacking the Difference Between Religion and Relationship. If you read the post entitled Read This First, you’ll get the gist of what this is all about, so I don’t have to repeat myself extensively here—but the essence of this blog is to unpack the statement “Christianity is not a religion—it’s a relationship.”

Although unpacking this statement and related issues will be the focus of this blog, and therefore the bulk of the posts will likely be directly or indirectly related to this subject, there are of course many other areas of biblical interest that I am passionate about that will eventually be made known.

So far, we have begun to explore and define what we mean when we use the word religion in this statement—for example, in the posts Defining Religion, and What Is Religion. So now we should probably begin to define what we mean when we use the word relationship is this statement as well.

The New Oxford American dictionary defines relationship as:

  • The way two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected.
  • The state of being connected by blood or marriage.
  • The way in which two or more people or organizations regard and behave toward each other.
  • An emotional and sexual association between two people.

Although all of these definitions have bearing on this subject, the ones that concern us the most directly are primarily definitions number one and number three above—we are very interested in the way two people (or more) people are connected, and especially the way two or more people regard and behave toward each other—these definitions and the interconnected issues are of critical importance.

For example, in addition to the maxim “Christianity is not a religion—it’s a relationship,” there is another maxim that is extremely similar…

“The Church is not an organization—it’s an organism.”

Although this statement requires unpacking as well, it is not quite so enigmatic as the first. The key to this maxim lies in the distinction between the words organization and organism. As a matter of fact, it is the deliberate juxtaposition of these two words (and for that matter the words religion and relationship in the first maxim) that should arrest our attention.

The key distinction between an organism and an organization is that an organism is a life form (is alive), while an organization is not. Or we could say that an organism is organic, while an organization is inorganic (despite all having the same root word). An organism is alive and is derived from or related to living matter, while an organization is a structure or arrangement of concepts, objects, or people, that does not derive from living matter. The same can be said of how the words religion and relationship are used in the first maxim.

In the statement “Christianity is not a religion—it’s a relationship,” we mean that religion is a structure or arrangement that is not organic. It does not derive from living matter, it is not a life form (alive), nor does it impart life—whereas a relationship (in this context) is organic—that is, it derives from living matter, is alive, and imparts life.

We will continue to explore, develop, and refine these definitions during our journey from religion to relationship.

A couple of additional ideas to leave with you before I end this post…

Religion is a counterfeit of genuine relationship. As such it wants to be perceived as organic—that it derives from living matter, is alive, and imparts life—and therefore camouflages and disguises itself to make this seem so. But this is in fact a critical component of the journey from religion to relationship—religion, despite its appearances, is not organic, is not alive, and most certainly does not impart life (much more on this later).

The fountainhead and exemplar of all relationship is the Godhead—three persons in continual vital union and relationship. Furthermore, the purpose of the Godhead in creating humanity was to expand and share relationship with others created in God’s image. (Again, much more to come.)

The Fabulous Flying Firkens

Posted: August 3, 2015 in End of Religion
Tags: , ,
0

In Deuteronomy 18:18, we read the prophecy that God would one day raise up a prophet like Moses. The word like means exactly what we would think it would mean—it means “like”—not identical, but similar in some ways and different in others.

Moses liberated people by the demonstrating God’s anger and judgment—symbolized by the power to turn water into blood. Jesus liberates people by demonstrating God’s grace and joy—symbolized by the power to turn water into wine.

At Jesus inaugural miracle (think that’s a coincidence?), turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana, we read that the party had already run out of wine. If this was the case, there had to be “empties” around, whether jugs, bottles, or wine skins—right? So, if there were empty containers lying around, why did Jesus deliberately select containers set aside for the specific purpose of religious ritual for the new wine?

And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. [John 2:6 KJV]

Was it deliberate? Was He making a point? I believe so. Why? Because Jesus didn’t come to start a new religion or even to perfect an existing one—Jesus came to put an end to religion in favor of relationship.

Jesus deliberately converted an icon of the religious ceremony into a symbol of relational celebration. He changed holy water into wedding wine. He changed legalism to life—religion into relationship.

All four gospel writers frequently use a fascinating Greek word to describe the effect of Jesus’ ministry. In English it is usually translated stumbling block, but is Greek it is skandalon, where we get the English word scandal. Their point seems to be that Jesus is a rock, but one you can just as easily trip over as build your life upon.

Soren Kierkegaard once wrote,

“Act just once in such a manner that your action expresses that you fear God alone and man not at all—you will immediately in some measure cause a scandal.”

Kind of puts a new spin on the phrase “What would Jesus do?” doesn’t it?

When I was in Bible College, one of the intramural basketball teams was called The Fabulous Flying Firkens. A lot of people took offense at the name. Ironically, that seems just about right.

The Quest for Significance

Posted: August 3, 2015 in End of Religion, Your God Journey
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

On the journey from religion to relationship, one of the obstacles we must deal with is our innate desire for significance.

On one hand, it is only natural for a devoted Christian to want to “do something significant” for God—but ironically, therein lays the rub. At the risk of being blunt, doing “something significant for God” more likely than not is an indicator of a performance-based mindset foreign to the New Covenant. As followers of Christ and members of his body our significance derives from our identity—who we are in Christ—not from what we do, regardless of how “significant” it may appear to be.

One of the consequences of the fall is shame. And by shame, I do not mean feelings of simple embarrassment—I mean an innate sense of inadequacy, insecurity, and low self-worth. Deep down we do not feel we have any value. Hence, it is our sense of shame that drives our desire to perform or produce. The reasoning becomes, “If I do something that has value, then I am valuable—If I do something significant, then I am significant.”

Unfortunately, religion doesn’t heal our sense of shame, but rather exploits our desire for significance by providing a method for achieving significance that we are told “comes from God”—and this is a powerful motivation indeed. If we believe that we achieve God’s approval (acceptance, affection, affirmation, etc.) by doing something significant (whatever that thing is, especially biblically sanctioned activities like prayer, Bible study, fasting, evangelism, etc.), then we are going to keep doing whatever that thing is, since the more I do it, the more significant I must be.

Furthermore, religion deftly camouflages itself by using “spiritually correct” terminology (kind of like “politically correct” except “spiritually correct”), while the substance of the matter remains quite different.

While most Christians are sincerely interested in “saving the lost,” or “advancing the kingdom,” sincerity is not a guarantee of truth. It is all-too-easy for these labels to be a clever disguise for a deeply entrenched performance-based system of acceptance that we are using to placate our need for approval and soothe our sense of shame.

The irony and the tragedy however is that this quest for significance is not necessarily “evil,” just human. Who doesn’t want their life to count for something? Who doesn’t want to be involved in something bigger than themselves? And as hinted at earlier, “doing something for God” and believing that you are racking up points with the Man Upstairs is big medicine. But the key of course is in how this all gets worked out—by human wisdom and man-made systems? Or by relaxing into the reality of Christ’s completed work?

Confusing the matter is unfortunately easy to do. The scriptures clearly encourage Christians to engage in a wide variety of “authorized” activities (such as prayer, Bible study, assembling together, evangelism, etc.), but the question we must ask ourselves (and be prepared for a potentially uncomfortable answer) is: “Am I doing these things to earn God’s approval (and thereby be deemed significant), or am I doing these things from a place of approval and significance—my position in Christ?” Christianity is rife with well-intentioned believers endlessly searching for that “new thing,” or “fresh word,” that sets them apart from others (and hence, more makes them more significant).

The distinction is between performance and relationship. True significance must be understood in the context of relationship. As soon as we define significance by performance we put it in a context that is impossible to understand and even harder to live up to. Furthermore, when significance is determined by a system, it isn’t actually “real,” since it is based in a thing and not a Person.

I cannot think of a single example in scripture of Jesus affirming anyone’s need for performance-based significance, in fact exactly the opposite. Whenever a person postured for performance-based significance He disarmed them—and those who could not posture for significance He exalted simply because He loved them. And this is precisely the point. There is little doubt that Jesus’ life was significant and that the people He loved felt significant. But Jesus’ ministry (despite what some may attempt to claim because of the “good works” He did) was not performance-based. Jesus never gave his followers instructions on how to perform properly—He spend the entirety of His earthly ministry teaching His followers how to live in relationship to Him as he lived in relationship to the Father. Jesus’ good works flowed from His relationship with the Father, not from an agenda to do good works, or even “advance the kingdom.” On several occasions people questioned Him, “By what authority are You doing these things? And who gave You this authority?” And yet Jesus was not the rabbi of a synagogue, was not the mayor of Nazareth, or a priest in the Temple. Jesus did not operate from any recognizable position of authority, influence, or significance apart from His relationship with the Father.

So we can see that significance in and of itself is not a bad thing—but whose definition of significance? Our desire for significance is the driving force behind many personal agendas designed to deliver us from our insecurity by finding value in achievement.

What makes this even worse however is that the value of achievement is always relative and comparative—I have achieved more than you, or you have achieved more than me—turning relationship into competition. Furthermore, our old man/fallen nature does not allow for the “win-win” scenario but insists that significance by achievement means only a few, or one, can rise to the top.

It is in this context that we can begin to understand why so much of Christianity is merely an Old Covenant paradigm with New Covenant labels.

The Law of Moses is the perfect example of a performance-based system of acceptance. Just keep all 613 ordinances and one achieves right standing before God—and if one has right standing before God—one is valuable. Furthermore, even if “I” cannot keep all 613 ordinances perfectly, if I can keep more than “you,” then I can conclude that I am more valuable than you.

The Old Covenant was an external law written on tablets of stone—in other words—a religious system. But the New Covenant is an internal “law” written on the tables of the heart—in other words—relationship.

But in practice, much of Christianity is just as performance-based as the Old Covenant.

Although we no longer (are supposed to) have a physical temple, our church buildings are our sacred spaces. We compete with each other over who can build the most lavish “church”—all “for God” of course. We spend literally millions of dollars on bigger and better buildings that can hold larger audiences, and have better sound systems and spectacular multi-media displays. Bigger and better equals performance, which equals achievement, which equals greater value.

Within a performance-based system of acceptance, bigger is always better, because “bigger” equals more value, and more value equals greater significance.

In addition to the size and beauty of our buildings, and the numbers in attendance, how much money we contribute to the building fund demonstrates levels of achievement and therefore, greater value and significance. This is despite the fact that under the New Covenant, the temple of God is people—valuing relationship over performance.

Although we no longer (are supposed to) have literal “sacrifices,” our church programs are our sacred rituals, and our financial giving and acts of service are considered sacrificial. Some local assemblies value “sound doctrine,” others value evangelism, and others still value “praise and worship.” Regardless of which (or all) programs a local assembly promotes, conformity to these programs is a measurable indicator of performance. Support for programs equals greater value and significance.

Although we no longer (are supposed to) have clergy and laity, and many “pastors” even preach this from the pulpit, most Christian “churches” function according to a hierarchy utterly foreign to the “priesthood of every believer/every member functioning” paradigm described in the New Covenant. Pastors, worship leaders, and other highly visible members of local assemblies become celebrities with loyalty and supporting the “vision of the house” translating into greater value and significance.

The presence of any performance-based system of achievement, by default, generates comparison and competition between members of the community. Each member is able to determine their own, as well as other member’s value based on obedience and conformity to the system. This is of course regardless of how well camouflaged the system is with “relational” vernacular. Plus, when we teach that such a system is God’s design, we up the ante. When we believe that we are validated in God’s sight by obedience to a system, genuine relationship is undermined if not down right impossible.

Furthermore, one does not have to have a genuine relationship with Jesus in order to be a “law-keeper”—in other words, someone who supports all the programs, is loyal to the pastor and the vision of the house, and pays his bills (so-called tithes and offerings). That’s just keeping a system. Unfortunately we are often taught that supporting these things either “is” relationship, or opens the door for relationship, or forms the basis of relationship, etc. This paradigm is precisely Christianity practiced as a religion.

Here’s another way of looking at it—God is first v. God is central.

In our quest to do something significant for God, many of us were taught to prioritize our activities according to “spiritual” priorities. Usually something like this:

1) God
2) Family
3) Church
4) Work
5) Friends

Whether you agree with this prioritization or not is not the point—the existence of such a list is the point. If we live according to a list of priorities, this is just another version of performance-based achievement and acceptance. If (according to the above list) I have a choice between a Bible Study at my church, or hanging out with my friends—if I believe in this scale of priorities, I had better choose the Bible Study in order to stay in right standing with God, and with others who follow this list. Furthermore, I (and others) can then use this list to judge who has greater value due to obedience to the list. This is a performance-based religious mindset.

Ironically, God never asks us to put Him “first” on any such list. What God asks, and what is relational, is that God asks us to keep Him central in all that we do—family, friends, work, church, recreation, etc. Imagine a children’s wind driven mobile. God is the central hub around which all other things rotate driven by the wind of the Holy Spirit. This way we are free to respond to the prompting of the Holy Spirit in our hearts as we engage all aspects of our lives with God at the center, instead of having to consult our priorities list that essentially makes the decision for you. When God is central however, unlike the list of priorities, there is no immediate answer to “which one is more important?” and instead becomes an exercise in following the voice of the Holy Spirit—“Where does God want me to be?”

Furthermore, when we follow a list of priorities, regardless of how right and godly it appears, the higher priorities compete with the lower priorities, which results in our neglecting the lower priorities so that I can feel good about myself. But when Jesus is central, He infuses all things with His life. He infuses my marriage, infuses my job, and infuses my church and recreational activities.

One is a system—one is a relationship.

But all that to say this. How does one transition from religion to relationship? Easy—die. Religion and performance-based systems of achievement are endemic to the old man, and he’s dead.

More to come…

Cross Purposes: The Divine Rule of Action

Posted: August 3, 2015 in Your God Journey
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

If you had one child in whom you found unspeakable delight, would it not be normal as a parent to want many more? And if you had many more, you certainly would not want them to be identical to one another. Similar maybe, but you would also want each one to be his or herself—to be distinctly unique—thereby experiencing tremendous pride and joy in each one, and yet multiplied by their numbers, and multiplied exponentially by their combinations and interactions.

This is exactly the case with the eternal Father, who by nature and choice has desired and purposed to have a vast family of children like His only begotten Son.

This desire becomes all the more evident when we realize that the Father made all His plans with the Son in view—looking from the eternal past into the unfolding ages to come, that Jesus Christ would have a glorious body and resplendent bride to be the visible expression and perfect counterpart (ezer kenegdo) of the unseen God in the earth.

And even more so when we apprehend that the Son has in turn dedicated Himself to helping the Father realize His eternal purpose—His ultimate intention—that the Father might have innumerable children in whom He can have parental honor, glory, pleasure, and delight.

So it is with the Godhead. No one member lives for or unto Himself, but each for the other. The Father intends that in all things the Son might have preeminence. The Son lives to reveal the Father. Likewise the Holy Spirit dedicates Himself, as the “operating system” of the Godhead, to revealing and realizing the purpose of the Father and the Son.

This innate attitude of selfless giving, serving, and sharing is the divine rule of action that pours forth from the very heart and nature of God, and is seen nowhere clearer than in the eternal cross.

Eternal cross, you say? Yes, eternal. The cross is not a one-time historical event in the material realm, but an eternal principle and action conceived and executed in the councils of the Godhead from before the foundation of the earth (Rev. 13:8). The cross is inherent and eternal in God.

The cross (death and resurrection) is and always has been the one method by which God moves His purpose and advances His kingdom. It expresses the very qualities and manner of life of the triune God. It is the life-giving, light-sharing, and love-bestowing principle by which God has dealt with mankind since the very beginning.

Among the manifold tragedies of the fall of mankind—symbolized by Eve eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as opposed to the tree of life—is that mankind refused to “live” by the “cross-principle.” (And yet this was paradoxically and immediately followed by Adam eating of the same fruit with the knowledge that he would die—in effect laying down his life for his bride.)

If we see the cross strictly as a redemptive measure in time and space, we miss the bigger picture—that from the beginning the Father has longed for a family of children who would embrace the same divine rule of action that has eternally governed his own heart. It was God’s intention, that by choosing to live by the tree of life—that is, to live by divine life—that the way of the cross would likewise become mankind’s manner and purpose of life.

Essential to the cross-principle however is the exercise of free moral choice—to choose to live to love, to give, to serve, and to share. And essential to free choice is the presence of a legitimate alternative—an alternative that in this case would ultimately prove to be fruitless—but a legitimate offer nonetheless. And given the choice of living unto the Creator’s purpose, the fitting alternative was the option to choose to live unto the creation’s (the created thing—that is—mankind’s) purpose. In other words, the choice was between living unto God’s purpose, or living unto self-purpose. For mankind, choosing to live unto God’s purpose would mean yielding back to God his own rights, goals and dreams. By choosing his own way and self-purpose however, mankind chose to live by his own knowledge, exercise his own rights, and pursue his own goals by his own strength, ability, and effort. The choice between God’s purpose and his own self-purpose was mankind’s first opportunity to choose the way of the cross, thereby setting the stage for each successive choice to more fully fashion the cross as an operating principle in the heart of man—thus God and man would have become two hearts living in common unity (community).

By choosing God’s way, the way of the cross would have become inwrought within the human race—God’s own divine rule for realizing his eternal purpose. In doing so, Adam would have entered into his high calling—to share God’s divine life, to bear His image, to fill the earth after his kind, and to have dominion over the earth. By choosing his own way, mankind became blind to God’s methodology and instead chose to advance his own agenda by his own efforts.

The eternal cross demonstrates that free choice, giving, serving, and sharing have been God’s chosen methods of operation since before time began, and will continue to be His primary intended methods of operation in perpetuity. As the manner of life within the Godhead, it demonstrates that genuine relationship is “unto the other” by definition.

In contrast, successive generations of the human race living by self-effort and in self-interest have only succeeded in establishing the opposite attributes—controlling, taking, and commanding (regardless of how cleverly disguised they are as virtues)—as mankind’s modus operandi. Human nature, and thereby all human systems and institutions—including and especially religion—default to these methods, although again, they are frequently camouflaged as being admirable qualities, or as being necessary for effectiveness or efficiency.

Unfortunately, we know all too well the way Adam chose, and that due to selfish choice and henceforth limited by sin and his natural senses, mankind could not understand the cross-principle of self-giving without an outward demonstration—hence the necessity of the historical cross.

For this reason, as well as by nature and by choice, the Father clothed the Son in human flesh and sent Him to walk among men. From the moment He emerged from the Jordan, every step Jesus took and every word He spoke was a revelation of the divine rule of action and was thus immediately and irrevocably at “cross-purposes” (pun intended) with human paradigms.

Cross Purposes-

Whether tempted by the enemy in the wilderness, facing down the Pharisees, or mysteriously slipping through a crowd that would make Him king, Jesus refused to do anything by self-effort or in self-interest. The eternal cross-principle had invaded space-time. Every encounter revealed the contrast between man’s way and God’s way. Whether offered by the devil in the wilderness, or attempted to be forced upon Him by the people—He refused the crown apart from the cross. When Peter rebuked the necessity of His death, Jesus responded at cross-purposes. When His own mother sought to press her maternal claims to His affection, Jesus responded at cross-purposes. When the Pharisees sought to stone the woman caught in adultery, Jesus responded at cross-purposes. Thus the road to Golgotha was strewn with many crosses.

Time and again Jesus cut “a-cross” the grain of human self-interest and worldly paradigms until fallen man nailed Him to one.

And while we may marvel at the blindness of those who made this fatal error, we must use great caution so as to not make a similar mistake. To limit the scope of the cross to a one-time historical event as a remedy for sin, and as a source of blessing and power, may be to see the cross as only an answer to our needs as opposed to an eternal rule of action, the point of which is to become the operating principle whereby God fulfills His eternal purpose and ultimate intention.

The way of the cross is a way of life. It has been practiced by the Godhead since time immemorial, and likewise will be for all the ages yet to come. But it is only as the cross becomes an inwrought rule of action in his children that we become truly alive to God and able to realize His eternal purpose in us.

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death. [Philippians 3:10 KJV]

Where Is God?

Posted: August 2, 2015 in End of Religion
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

So you’re sitting in a really boring church service and all of a sudden the pastor totally changes gears and prays, “Holy Spirit come!” Instantly the whole atmosphere of the meeting changes and there is excitement and many “outward”demonstrations and manifestations of the Holy Spirit’s “presence.”

So here are my questions…

· Where was the Holy Spirit before the pastor prayed, “Holy Spirit come?” What was He doing and why didn’t He respond earlier?

· Is the God of the Bible a deity that needs to be reached out to before He reaches out or responds to us?

· Does God just show up randomly when He feels like it? Is God aloof or capricious?

· Is God separate from us, and “out there” (pointing upward or outward) somewhere?

· Is God so transcendent that He is difficult to reach?

But now the real kicker—how do our answers to these questions correspond and harmonize with the clear teachings of the New Covenant/Testament?

· God loves us passionately.

· The Holy Spirit (the whole Godhead for that matter) is an indwelling presence.

· Where two or three are gathered in my name there am I (not there I might be if you pray hard enough) in the midst.

· God is for us (not against us or even neutral or impartial).

· Nothing can separate us from Him or His love.

· He does not leave us or forsake us.

Which leads me to my final question:

· Do significant numbers of Christians and significant portions of so-called mainstream Christianity actually live within an Old Covenant paradigm camouflaged in New Covenant terminology and labels?

Older Entries