Grow Up

By this time you should be teachers. But in fact, you need someone to teach you all over again. You need even the simple truths of God's word. You need milk, not solid food. Anyone who lives on milk is still a baby. That person does not want to learn about living a godly life. Solid food is for those who are grown up. They have trained themselves with a lot of practice. They can tell the difference between good and evil. So let us leave the simple teachings about Christ. Let us grow up as believers. Let us not start all over again with the basic teachings. They taught us that we need to turn away from doing things that lead to death. They taught us that we must have faith in God. They taught us about different kinds of baptism. They taught us about placing hands on people. They taught us that people will rise from the dead. They taught us that God will judge everyone. And they taught us that what he decides will last forever. If God permits, we will go beyond those teachings and grow up.[1]

Paul, or whoever wrote the letter to the Hebrews, challenged believers who were coasting along in spiritual infancy to grow up. The author advocated spiritual independence, a state of maturity in which the believer understood the difference between good and evil. Compare that to what Churches considered spiritual maturity today. The letter suggested the recipients should be teachers, not children needing to be taught the same things over and over again. Spiritually speaking, a first century infant was more advanced than mature Church members today. The primary task of leaders in a Church is to grow the congregation numerically. People are not encouraged to become spiritually independent, they are indoctrinated with the dogma of whatever Church they attend. Very few Churches, if any, see their role as that of encouraging spiritual maturity, so that believers can move away from that congregation as free emissaries of Christ. If we look at God’s plan for a family we see that at some point the guy will leave home and establish his own family related to, but independent of his parents. Churches don’t operate that way, they want keep everyone returning to the same building, same pew, and same old… whatever. Because, it’s a numbers game; look how many people come to our Church! Week after week the minister is expected to humour and entertain the congregation. It’s his job to mollycoddle and pamper the congregation so they will all keep turning up on Sunday morning.

When I was a kid, my buddy and I thought that if we were in the Church building when the end came, we’d be safe. –We were kids, about the spiritual age of those to whom the biblical author addressed his rebuke, but we were just kids. Come to think about it, we didn’t hatch that idea out of the air, it must have been communicated to us somehow. Not directly, but more likely assumed from the constant emphasis on attendance. Where do these bogus concepts come from? Few of the very important regulations found in Church teaching actually come from scripture. In the Hebrew system most of the regulations governed time not spent in meetings, or ceremonies back then. Men in Israel were expected to attend three ceremonies a year; there was no requirement for women to do so. That doesn’t sound very religious. Obedience to God when Israel was his nation, had more to do with daily life than with public ceremonies –the very opposite of what is taught today. A person’s spirituality is judged on Church attendance. Jesus said his disciples were lights in the world, presumably lights where light was needed, not a cluster of lights in a decorative chandelier.

Many of us have spent a long time in a Church. Much good has been accomplished through the system of Churches that may not have been possible without the institution. The first missionaries to southern Africa were from Britton, later there were missionaries from New Zealand, and about that time missionaries arrived from USA. In later years it must have been very confusing for the African people since there were many missionaries and about as many different doctrines. Modern times are no different, Churches send missionaries to foreign countries to teach people about Jesus –no, not Jesus, but each Church’s particular brand and doctrine. The Church is more important than Christ; truth is the possession of a Church –of course that is pure nonsense!

Some, to be sure, are preaching Christ even from envy and strife, but some also from good will; the latter do it out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,[2]

Where is the spirit of Christ, that each Church teaches its habits and traditions as truth, when it was Jesus who was crucified and raised to life by the Father? Why isn’t his name glorified? Why isn’t his love exemplified? Why instead are his goals modified? Paul rejoiced because Christ was being preached. He stated his desire and intent:

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.[3]

It is really sad that Christianity is torn apart by Church traditions and trash. Jesus prayed for the unity of believers and instructed his disciples that by their love for one anther he would be seen as their leader. Who emerges as the leader of Christianity when seen through the discord and animosity among Churches? Maturity in Christ is being able to tell the difference between good and evil. Maturity come from years of spiritual practice and life exercise. Spiritual maturity is not the ability to argue points of doctrine. It is the ability, to know right from wrong –the difference between good and evil.

---

[1] Heb 5:12-6:3 (NIrV)

[2] Php 1:15-18

[3] Co 2:1, 2  

The Lifted Lord

…just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. [1]

…the LORD said to Moses, "Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live." So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.[2]

Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness:

Interminable walking, waiting, and watching; decades of doubt and disappointment blunted Israel’s desire. Any spark of hope had long been extinguished, in the delay to accommodate the passing of an entire generation. Desert heat, dangers of the wilderness, contributed to the reckless desperation of speaking against God. Israel should have known better for by this time the people had witnessed the wrath of God against unfaithfulness in more ways than one. It was faithlessness that drove them into exile, and faithlessness that brought God’s punishment upon them in the form of serpents. When bitten, searing venom coursed through one’s veins bringing agonizing death. Penitently, leaders approached Moses seeking relief from the curse among them. Moses in turn spoke to God, and received a plan of action to be followed by anyone who was bitten. It did not include the removal of the serpents, but a remedy for people poisoned. Israel had demonstrated its faithlessness, and as the antidote, a display of faith was required for a victim to be cured. Moses at God’s bidding made a bronze snake, placed it on a pole for those bitten to see and be healed.

Most references to “serpent” in scripture are figurative; in the account mentioned by Jesus, the serpent would have been an actual poisonous snake. Israel had an antipathy to the snake because of its role in the fall of man, “that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan.”[3] Israel like Eve was deceived by Satan, causing people to criticize God. “… I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by its cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.”[4] Faithlessness could only be remediated by a positive act of faith. By looking at the bronze image of a serpent (symbolizing Satan), the wounded were healed by the mercy of God. Satan’s deceit of Israel lead to rebellion; which was met with death from the venom of poisonous snakes. Death from the bite of those snakes symbolized Satan’s pernicious nature. Being under Satan’s control results in death. In the same way the serpent instilled dissatisfaction into Eve’s mind, he manipulated the minds of Israel, which led them into action that brought death from lethal snake bites. When they believed God’s word they were healed by acting on their faith. God used the image of a serpent, which was a symbol of Satan, as an instrument of faith leading to healing.

The Son of Man must be lifted up:

…just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.[5]

The lifting of the bronze snake in the wilderness is considered a type with Jesus being the antitype. The cross represented death. The grave represented absence from God. And, the resurrection represented victory over death and Satan. Israel gained victory over Satan by putting their faith in God. All who looked at the bronze snake were healed. All who believe in Jesus are saved, from the snare of Satan, and banishment from God. Jesus battled Satan crushing his head in the victory of the resurrection and by offering life to all believers.

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.

The leaders, chief priest among them had, as it were, signed a death warrant for Jesus. Satan, manipulating the envy and insecurity of the Jewish council was in control, ready to bring about the death of God’s Son. The backdrop to events was Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem; adulation and praise announced his progress. The council’s plan to arrest and kill Jesus was Satan’s device by which he intended to destroy the Son of God. To everyone watching, the cross was the end of the man who claimed to be the Messiah. To the blood-lust intoxicated crowed the Nazarene would challenge their conscience no more. Satan supposed he would be unopposed in his deception. Contradicting evil assumptions, Jesus stated that Satan would “be driven out”.

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

The world focused on the demise of Jesus, the righteous mourned, while evil celebrated his death –the death of an imposter. Some would have thought Jesus’ words hollow, when he said, “now the ruler of this world will be driven out.” Or, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” Being lifted up referenced the manner of his death, crucifixion. The world will be judged, Satan will be driven out of the world, but as for me –I will be victorious. Jesus said that all those who came to him would be given life. Not his exact words, but that is what the cross means for people who believe. We should never think that there is a different way, nor should we believe we can do it on our own. The only access to God is via the cross. Moses elevated the bronze snake. Israelites with venom in their veins could by lifting their eyes be healed by the love of God. We need to lift our eyes from the troubles and pressures of earth to look at the cross.

The greatest lesson for me looking at the lifted Lord is, ‘that it is not always what it appears to be.’ There was finality in a crucifixion, it was horribly painful, dehumanizing, and shameful. I can only imagine the despair of believers watching as their hopes died with Jesus. They could not understand that it wasn’t what it seemed to be –that realization would come later. People today can’t experience that same faith-jolting scene, but we will all face situations that challenge our faith. Through electronic media we witness the horror of death and destruction. We all feel the anxiety of living in a world that disregards God. And, we all feel threatened by evil intent. Our assurance comes from looking to the lifted Lord. To those intent on evil, the cross was and is an illusion of victory, to believers the cross is absolute victory.

On the cross Jesus was suspended between the earth and heavens. To access God’s gift it is necessary to lift our eyes from the earth to focus on Jesus who is the path between earth and eternity. The cross was not what it seemed to be: not for believers who didn’t understand God’s plan, nor for the enemies of Jesus who thought they had succeeded in killing him.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who for the sake of the joy that was set before him endured the cross, disregarding its shame, and has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such hostility against himself from sinners, so that you may not grow weary or lose heart.[6]

---

[1] Joh 3:14, 15

[2] Num 21:8, 9

[3] Rev 20:2 

[4] 2Co 11:3 

[5] Joh 12:31, 32

[6] Heb 12:1-3  

Hope in Jesus

The myth of America as a Christian nation, with the church as its guardian, has been, and continues to be, damaging both to the church and to the advancement of God's kingdom. Among other things, this nationalistic myth blinds us to the way in which our most basic and most cherished cultural assumptions are diametrically opposed to the kingdom way of life taught by Jesus and his disciples. … The myth clouds our vision of God's distinctly beautiful kingdom and thereby undermines our motivation to live as set-apart (holy) disciples of this kingdom.[1]

Many western countries in their beginning established laws based on Judaic, Christian principles. Except for Islamic and eastern countries, few mix religion with politics as much as the US. It appears to makes no difference to staunch Bible believing Republicans that Jesus taught that, his kingdom was not of this world^[2], nor, that Jesus spoke against living by the sword.[3] There is no faction similar to the American “religious right” in the Canadian government.

Justin Trudeau’s intent to whip any vote on abortion (excepting current anti-choice MPs) has led to concern about a leader overriding an MP’s autonomy on a conscience issue… Actually, we’d be much better talking about the larger problem: whether the Westminster convention of conscience votes is itself outdated.

The labelling of certain topics as conscience issues, where free votes are allowed, stemmed in part from a narrow interpretation of morals—religious, cultural or societal. Party discipline was not appropriate because the values underlying one’s feelings were sacrosanct . . .

So is the concept of conscience votes at all relevant now? With a much broader understanding of values and morals, and in a multi- and, indeed, non-faith environment, is it appropriate to consider an MP’s feelings on these issues inviolable?[4]

This quote by Lauren Dobson is from an article in MacLean’s, by Aaron Wherry. Dobson reflects the growing attitudes of government, suggesting that the Westminster convention is outdated, because now there is “a much broader understanding of values and morals, and in a multi- and, indeed, non-faith environment…” The Canadian parliament is influenced greatly by the vocal minority, which makes good political sense. Because the “silent majority” is muted, its views are not considered. “Often, and especially in Canada, there is a consensus that religion is a private matter. … Canadians are extraordinarily cynical of professions of religious faith, especially Christian religious faith and political leaders…”[5] There is growing intolerance toward the Christian faith and the institutional Church bears much of the blame for that. From Dobson’s statement it is evident that standards which have been accepted for years as democratic, are under fire from those with divergent views and causes. But what if anything does this have to do with hope in Jesus?

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Religious people, specifically Christians, cannot expect that their rights of freedom, guaranteed by the Charter, will be honoured by the government. The current prime minister has said that, the right of women supersede the Charter. The government is not now, nor ever was a security blanket for people of faith. Pierre Trudeau, when acting as Justice Minister, said, “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation,”[6] and added “what's done in private between adults doesn't concern the Criminal Code.”[7] The comments were made in support of his proposal to decriminalize homo-sexuality. During his time divorce was legalized. At that time religious institutions were horrified by the proposed changes. Governments cannot be directed exclusively by Christian principles, and nor should they; their task is to govern the country. This is the reality that Christians must get used to it. No nation or country represents God, and no earthly empire is the kingdom of God. In the same way, no Church or religious institution represents the kingdom of God. The Catholic Church is not the kingdom of God; some Catholics may be citizens of the kingdom. No Protestant Church is the kingdom of God; though some from within that community may be citizens. No evangelical or fundamental Church is the kingdom of God, but some adherents may be in it. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”

The Church has brought on itself criticism from society and some of it is justified. There are as many crazy people in Church as in general society, maybe more, who knows? There are some Church activities of which “outsiders” are suspicious. I am a believer, but I am embarrassed by the antics of some “Christians”. People sometimes say that Churches are filled with hypocrites, and sometimes what they is true. Disciples of Jesus obviously benefit under a government sympathetic to their beliefs, but if faith can flourish only in that environment, it is not what it should be. Christianity blossomed under persecution, not that believers today should seek adversity. The absolute worst thing for Christianity was its acceptance as the state religion of Rome. That was the birth of the Church and institutional Christianity. Long before that, believers were instructed to pray “for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.”[8] That did not suggest believers were to look to earthly governments for security of faith. The believer’s hope and assurance are in Jesus. If the government doesn’t hassle believers, that’s a plus, but not a necessity. People committed to a Church are going to see their world changed. People espousing causes as a means of acceptance by God, will be disillusioned. Although scoffed at by doubters and atheists, “blind faith” is the only path to God. People who believe and are committed to Jesus are to grow in faith to become like the faithful of old, “…strangers and exiles on the earth … seeking a country of their own.”[9]

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also…"[10]

---

[1] The Myth of a Christian Nation, by Gregory Boyd,  pp. 13, 14

[2] Joh 18:36

[3] Joh 18:11

[4] macleans.ca A few more thoughts on Trudeau, abortion and the party whip, by Aaron Wherry

[5] The Private Faith and Public Lives of Evangelical MPs, Jonathan Malloy

[6] CBC Digital Archives

[7] ibid

[8] 1Ti 2:2 

[9] Heb 11:13, 14 

[10] Joh 14:6, 7 

Make the familiar strange

To romanticize the world is to make us aware of the magic, mystery and wonder of the world; it is to educate the senses to see the ordinary as extraordinary, the familiar as strange, the mundane as sacred, the finite as infinite.[1]

This philosophy has been used to inspire creativity in business by a number of speakers and authors.

One of the well-known aphorisms in the field of creativity consulting is to "make the familiar strange." When we’re overly familiar with something, we have all kinds of assumptions, biases, and preconceived notions that inhibit us from discovering new and potentially exciting ways of looking at it. By making the familiar strange, we can often once again look at that something with a fresh, new, almost naive perspective and open ourselves to the possibility of making some truly unique discovery.[2]

Government corporations and their unions are woefully inefficient and steeped in tradition. Many large corporations are sluggish and unwieldly; these companies seldom take remedial action until shareholder value plummets. In most cases the bottom line has indicated the ineffectiveness of the company for considerable time before any action is taken. Corporations have to do something to stop the bleeding, or they will go out of business. One major institution that has failed miserably in virtually every department, other than the Post Office, is the Church. I can’t think of any institution that needs to review it output and purpose more than the Church. Traditions are like barnacles on a ship; those tiny creatures can make a ship use up to 40 percent more fuel. The area they cover may be small compared to the size of the ship, but their collective mass causes considerable drag on the hull. Likewise, the accumulation of traditions over time has bogged the Church down to where it is ineffective and irrelevant.

Against all odds, Christianity in its early years grew exponentially. Established religions were opposed to and persecuted the disciples of Jesus; Rome viewed the upstart religion as atheistic, and a social pariah. Yet in a climate of adversity belief and commitment to Christ was established world-wide within a relatively short time. For somewhere around three hundred years independent congregations of Christians existed in countries, cities, towns and villages. Until the time of Constantine congregations were autonomous and self-sufficient. Disparities existed in structure and doctrine among congregations to the point that Constantine deemed it necessary to convene the council of Nicaea. The purpose of the council was to impose unity upon the disparate communities of Christians. Under Constantine’s direction the various congregations were brought under the control of bishops residing in Rome. The structure adopted by the newly organized body was that of the Roman Empire; thus the Roman Church came into being. Over the centuries reformers have tweaked doctrines with very little substantial changes resulting to the structure or doctrines of the Church. Every denomination and Christian organization has roots firmly embedded in the Church of Rome. Reformers, ancient and modern, have all taken the traditional base – the Roman Church, as the model, and from there moved in some direction more appealing to themselves. Some of the restorers worked on the assumption that the New Testament Church had to be reinstated. Even the restorers used the base of the Roman Church, stripping from it doctrines not found in the New Testament and inserting what they called biblical processes. Nobody that I know of followed the philosophy of Novalis, or was brave enough to consider that the Church may not be a New Testament entity, but an unwieldly, cumbersome design of man.

Establishing Churches and planting Churches, are not remotely related to the growth of discipleship in the first century, “…those who had been scattered went about preaching the word.”[3] Christianity is said to have reached Briton before the death of Claudius in 54 CE. It was not an organized Church sending out missionaries, but individuals, possibly a Roman soldier, merchants, or travelers. If it were possible to forget the traditions we’ve accepted as truths, if we could step away from any bias we have, or if we could free our minds from presuppositions; then with an open mind seek the kingdom of God, what would being a disciple look like? It took the emperor of Rome to force scattered independent congregations into an ungodly organization. Stripped of tradition, no one would use the word Church since it is not in the original language of the New Testament. If one studied with an open mind, there would be no pope, there is only Jesus. If without bias we read the gospels, we would want to be just believers, disciples of Jesus not members of a Church.

Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.[4]

Are we able to accept the raw simplicity of John’s writing? Is it actually possible that if the only scripture available to us was the gospel of John, that we could believe in Jesus and have life in his name? How many conditions would yet apply? What caveats need to be considered? What Church doctrines or practices supersede the written word?

Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."[5]

---

[1] Baron Georg Philipp Friedrich von Hardenberg, pseudonym – Novalis

[2] 99% Inspiration, by Bryan Mattimore p. 72

[3] Act 8:4 

[4] Joh 20:30, 31 

[5] Joh 6:28, 29