A Little FYI for Readers (if there are multiple)

I'm transferring my blog over to another website, wordpress, as I continually find blogspot to not have enough options and I enjoy the wordpress layout more. the website url is http://humblevision.wordpress.com/ Also, if anyone actually reads this, I was wondering if you hated my last little series that was involved a lot of theogical laboring? I knew I needed to establish and test my beliefs and I thought I'd share my journey with whoever would like to read along, but it is a little different than my more hearty posts. I'll try to limit those types of posts to once in a while and not all at once... they aren't as fun to write either.

Tongues of Angels: Really... Angels? (pt 3)

1 Corinthians chapters 12 through 14 deals with speaking in tongues extensively, especially how it should be used within the church. Many read 1 Corinthians as containing the primary passages explaining the nature of what the gift of tongues is like. I do think that it does say some important things about the spiritual gift and does help us to understand more what the purpose of its use is; however, Acts 2, being the first use of the spiritual gift, is still the lens that I am going to use as I look at what 1 Corinthians 12-14 has to say. This does not mean I force Corinthians to fit the Acts mold, but work to developing a cogent, interconnect, and somewhat holistic perspective on the spiritual gift of languages where there is harmony between the stories of Acts and Paul's theology in 1 Corinthians.

There are a few places in the text of 1 Corinthians that, to some, seem to indicate that the gift of languages is about speaking unknown languages from the Spirit rather than speaking languages by the power of the Spirit that the speaker has never before learned. As I have already outlined improper uses of the gift of languages Paul discusses, I will be primarily only be explicating portions of text relating to the belief that the gift of tongues is a language unknown on earth.

The first place where the word is mentioned in chapter 12 is in verse 11 , which discusses that all the spiritual gifts are from the same Spirit (an attempt to remove any spiritual gift-based hierarchies). The translation here is a little tricky. NIV says "different kinds of tongues," a more literal Greek translation says "various kinds of tongues." Some argue here that "different kinds of tongues" means something unique, something other than the usual type of language. First of all, it's a stretch of those words to assume it means speaking in a language unknown on earth. Speaking in different kinds of languages could just as easily mean speaking in languages that are different or foreign to the speaker, but are languages known by people in the world. Second, the word used prior to glosson ("of tongues," or "of languages") is genae. The meaning of the word in this context is "kinds." There is no word here for "various" or "different," those words were merely inserted in an attempt to make the translation more sensible to English ears, but there isn't an indication in the Greek text that those words need to be or should be inserted. Thus, the interpretation that these two words, genae glosson, mean speaking in a language that does not actually exist on earth is, at best, a large stretch.

1 Corinthians 13:1 is what the title of this and the last two blog posts was based on. Paul says, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging symbol." Oh, there it is, speaking the languages of angels. That sounds a lot like speaking in a heavenly language or a language that is unknown on earth. What are you going to do with that Jeremiah? You're finished. Indeed, this is a slightly more difficult passage to demonstrate how it fits into my interpretation of the spiritual gift of languages, but I hope I can show that it does not in any way negatively impact my interpretation. I think that the biggest issue with this passage, the same issue that plagues the Scriptural interpretation of the gift of languages, is that people that speak in tongues or have close friends that speak in tongues cling hard to the passage as a proof text about what the nature of the gift of tongues is. It's the language of angels, obviously.

There are two problems (maybe more) with jumping straight to this conclusion. One, the purpose of this passage was to talk about love, not the nature of the gift of tongues. If we are to develop a theology of the spiritual gift, shouldn't we look more closely at the places where Scripture is focused on that gift rather than a place where it mentions it in order to talk about something else? Certainly, this verse contains truth about the gift of tongues, but there would have to be more texts confirming that the gift of languages is indeed referring to speaking in angelic languages. My argument is that there s not. Two, the three verses forming the intro to Paul's brief love discourse are full of hyperbolic language. In verse 2 Paul also talks about knowing all mysteries, having all knowledge, and removing mountains - things we know to be impossible for a human. Paul talks in verse 3 about dying in flames and giving everything that he has away. The essential point of these verses is not about having the most amazing spiritual abilities, doing the impossible, or sacrificing to the extreme, but about everything being pointless if the motivation is not love. There's a lot more going through my head, but for brevity's sake, I will merely say this: It fits the interpretation well to infer that Paul was not talking about speaking in the tongues of angels as something that is actually performed by believers, but he uses hyperbole to emphasize the pointlessness of all spiritual abilities if one lack's love.

On to 1 Corinthians 14, our thickest chapter yet. I'll try to move through without loquacity. First point I want to make is about the King James Version. Many people use this version to formulate theology as it is generally regarded as a highly literal translation and has been around for so long. At points where the Greek talks about speaking in tongues, the KJV in 1 Corinthians 14 inserts the word "unknown" before tongues. This word is not present in the Greek, nor does it need to be to make sense of it. The insertion of this word is an example of reading theology into Scripture, instead of forming theology from Scripture. So, any arguments relying upon the word "unknown" in the KJV are void. We must interpret the original text and refrain from interpreting the interpretations of that text.

Difficult verse #1: 1 Corinthians 14:2 "For anyone who speaks in a language does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit." This could mean that no man understands the language and only God does because it is a heavenly language not spoken on earth; it could also mean that no one understands the language because no one is a native speaker of that language within the church at that time. Paul is in the middle of a discourse where he is primarily teaching about the use of the spiritual gifts within the church, while a formal time of worship and teaching is going on. Thus, when one is speaking in a language during this time and there is not one with the gift of interpretation present (1 Cor 14:13) or someone else who understands the language being spoken and can tell everyone else what was said (1 Cor 14:27). Certainly, even if it were given that speaking in tongues was speaking in nonsense syllables, Paul did think that there were sometimes people who understood the language being spoken, which he shows later in the chapter when he talks about one who is able to interpret being present. So, we cannot take "no one understands him" in verse 2 at face value. Practically, what this appears to be is a statement about what has been typically seen in the Corinthians church, individuals are using their gift of speaking in foreign languages when there is no one around who understands that language. Not only this, but it seems in the church that there are a number of people using their gift of languages at once, flaunting their spiritual gift in a raucous church service. It seems indeed then, in these situations, no man would understand what was being spoken even if he could interpret. The mysteries uttered to God are mysteries not because they are highly special secrets, but because the God of all languages is the only one who actually understands them.

Difficult verses #2: 1 Corinthians 14:7-13
Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or the harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. So it is with you.

For the person that believes speaking in tongues is uttering syllables that make no sense in any human language, this passage seems to be directly evidencing that. However, there is definitely another way to interpret this passage, it's similar to many of the arguments that I have already been making. If someone stood up in church and started speaking Japanese, although the words might be true and distinctive to many Japanese speakers, the words would not be intelligible to me. I would not hear a distinction of syllables. Someone might as well be playing instruments with no regard for playing actual notes, neither the language or the song would be something that I could distinguish. A trumpet call that sounds like an animal won't incite me for battle readiness, for I won't know what it is. Neither will someone speaking a language I don't understand prepare me for spiritual battle. The interpretation that Paul is talking about foreign languages here does work well. Again, like much of what we say, it does not preclude the possibility of Paul talking about heavenly languages, but we are repeatedly debunking everything that might seem like Scriptural evidence. At the end of this passage, Paul seems to be clarifying what he is saying and talking about. Indeed, he seems to be saying that as he was talking about the gift of languages, he was talking about speaking in languages that are spoken on earth all along. He says, in Jeremiah paraphrase, "Of course the languages that are being spoken by people in the congregation have meaning somewhere, because these languages are spoken all over the world, but if I don't understand the language, the speaker might as well be speaking gibberish. Speaking foreign languages to each other only serves to distance us from one another."

1 Corinthians 14:21-23
In the Law it is written:
"Through the men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,"
says the Lord.
Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers, but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers. So, if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and some who do not understand or some unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

I recently ran into the interpretation that the gift of languages as a sign for unbelievers was actually a sign of judgment for unbelievers. This is a good interpretation, especially in light of Paul's paraphrasic quotation of Isaiah 28. The interpretation I ran into basically said that because the unbelievers couldn't understand the heavenly language spoken by the believers, they were doomed to destruction. It is a sign to unbelievers that they are the preterite, fated to hell. The working out of this man's interpretation was essentially predeterministic, which is a nasty way of thinking about reality. A better way of working out the interpretation that this passage is talking about judgment is by using our Acts 2 event as a model for understanding this passage. The disciples were men of strange languages to many of the people listening, they were foreigners from different parts of the Roman empire than their hearers that spoke a different language and dialect, yet they spoke to the unbelievers in their own language and dialect. Therefore, the prophecy was fulfilled, through foreigners the unbelievers heard the gospel. Despite this, although many believed (Acts 2:41), some "made fun of them" (Acts 2:13) and did "not listen" to the Lord speaking through "men of strange tongues" (1 Cor 14:21). The gift of languages, then, is a sign for unbelievers, not so that they would know they will be destroyed but a sign for them, done on their behalf, that they might see the power of God in Messiah Jesus and then believe. The idea that tongues are a sign for unbelievers to be aware that they aren't a part of the kingdom doesn't work with Paul's concern for unbelievers. Paul doesn't say believers should avoid speaking in tongues because he fears unbelievers will hear, not understand, and be marked out as unbelievers, but that believers should be careful about making the Jesus way seem like the way of insanity. He doesn't want unbelievers to hear believers speaking in various languages that don't make sense to anyone because it might keep the unbelievers from coming to God. Their confusion and negative opinion that would develop of the followers would deter them from following the way of the Messiah.

Another point that invalidates the idea that speaking in tongues is speaking a single heavenly language is that 1 Corinthians 14 talks about speaking in a language or about speaking in languages. If the gift of speaking in a tongue meant speaking in one, singular language that is used in heaven, then we would find the Greek definite article (English "the") present before the word glossa. Scripture talks about the gift of languages as if it meant multiple language and not a single one. If this were the case, we would find Scripture talking about "the language," but we don't see the definite article before glossa which would affirm it as a singular; rather we see Scripture talking about "languages" or "a language" (which implies that there are more languages). This doesn't exclude the possibility that Scripture is talking about having multiple angelic languages, but typically the gift of tongues is interpreted by people as describing a single language from the Spirit. This is because tongues is sometimes seen as the redemption of what happened with the tower of Babel - a single language turned into many. Now, with the coming of Christ, many languages have become one and the original language, the one used in heaven, is now back on earth by the power of the Spirit. It is clear Paul is not talking about this because the grammar he uses requires us to interpret that he is talking about multiple languages.

In my Scripture based opinion, the gift of languages is the ability of a person to speak in languages they have not actually learned in order to communicate the message of Jesus Christ to unbelievers in a way that demonstrates the power of God and so verifies the message. I think it's a stretch to interpret that the gift of tongues is the ability of people to speak in languages that are from heaven or that are unknown on earth. Like anything that stretches, interpretations of the words of Scripture can only be stretched so far before they break. I think rubber band of the Pentecostal interpretation has been stretched beyond the breaking point.

Tongues of Angels: Really... Angels? (pt. 2)

Two other passages in Acts discuss speaking in languages as a sign of the presence of the Holy Spirit. These passages both are points where small groups of people move across the line demarcating belief in the Jewish God, and belief that the full revelation of that Jewish God and the Messiah is Jesus. When they shift, or perhaps a better word, expand, their beliefs, there is a breaking of the chains of the law of sin and death that allows the powerful indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. Both of these groups in some way expand their beliefs in a way that frees them and blesses them with God in them. The gift of languages is bestowed upon these new believers (or, old believers in YHWH who have in turn believed in the Messiah as they acquired knowledge of who He was) as they put their faith in Christ for the purpose of validating with the power of the Spirit the reality of their conversion.

Passage #1 is Acts 10:44-46:
While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit come on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in languages and praising God.

The immediate initial presence of the gift of languages in passage #1 is almost certainly for validation purposes. This moment in Acts 10 where Cornelius, a Gentile Centurion, and his household come to believe marks and foundationalizes a shift in the theology of the early church. Up until this point Peter and the other very Jewish disciples of Jesus Christ were very pro-Jews following Christ, but not really excited or deliberate about going after the Gentile community. Like the Jewish faith prior to Christ, the Jewish faith after the Messiah only let in a handful of Gentiles. Acts 10 is the story of God speaking in clear ways to Peter about what He thinks about the Gentiles and how He wants Peter, the leader of the church, to see Gentiles as people who are just as welcome into the Messiah Kingdom as the Jews. It required clear visions from God and clear proofs in order for Peter's theological Weltanschauung to expand enough to include Gentiles. Hopefully that brief treatment of a much larger issue was enough. The point that I want to be clear is that this is a very difficult mental transition for Peter to make.

So, God (in addition to visions and His clear hand in bringing these two people together) showed Peter a sign that Peter could not deny was evidence of the power of God, the spiritual gift of languages. God here used the gift as a way of evidencing that Cornelius truly had become a member of the kingdom of God, that indeed Gentiles were not only welcome to come to Christ, but were allowed to become full participators in that Spirit-filled kingdom. This gift was used by God to validate to Peter that God's way has been opened to all - proved by the "signs" that accompanied "those that believe:" in the name of Jesus they spoke in "new languages" (Mk. 16:17). After they were speaking in languages, Peter was convinced that these believers were a part of the kingdom and then baptized them in the name of Jesus. It was the miracle of the gift of languages that immediately led to formal baptism into the fellowship of believers and clear acknowledgement that the Holy Spirit was in them. It validated Cornelius' and his household's conversion.

The gift of languages, if given by God for validation purposes, should not be something that people can be taught to do or something that people can copy, but should be an inimitable supernatural sign. The speaking of nonsense syllables is something that is able to be imitated well. I know of many, many cases where the gift of tongues has been imitated by people who felt intense pressure to fake it to be seen as more spiritual. It is then not much of a sign of God if it is something that can be copied. When God speaks through miraculous signs, it is unable to be replicated in a way that is convincing. Although the magicians of Pharaoh copied some of the signs of Moses, they were cheap imitations and obviously were not from the power of God. Their snakes were swallowed and their copycat miracles amounted to parlor tricks compared to the might of God. It would not make sense for God to send a sign that is readily faked in a convincing manner, that's not how the God of Scripture has shown himself to be.

And passage #2 is Acts 19:4-6:
Paul said, "John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe6u in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." On hearing this, they were baptized the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in languages and prophesied.

This passage demonstrates the inadequacy and incompleteness of the Jewish belief prior to Christ. Although the believers in Ephesus probably believed much of what Paul did, even up to the point that John was the one who was to come before the Messiah, there was much that they did not know to be true and therefore could not believe. Their knowledge was inadequate, and therefore so was their faith; thus, they had not yet entered the kingdom of God here on earth. The spiritual gifts of languages and prophecy confirmed to the believers that their belief and baptism into Christ was the ultimate, it was the entrance into the spiritual life that they had been looking for, not because it was full of lofty spiritual experiences, but because it, like the gifts given to the new believers, was undeniably real and powerful.

A few important things to note about both passages: Neither of these passages give us a hint as to the nature of the gift of languages, that is, neither passage tells us what the gift of languages actually sounded like or how it was heard by the disciples. There is an underlying assumption in the written text that the reader knows what the gift of languages is like. Why is this assumption present? Because the text has already shown us precisely what the gift of languages is like in Acts 2. There is no need in the proceeding passages about languages to explain how the gift manifested itself, for we have already read how the gift manifested and know what it is like. Neither of these passages demonstrate a sort of a second baptism into Christ - for this interpretation to work it has to be completely read into the text, and even then, it doesn't work (I'll exegete these passages in light of the second baptism theology in my Q & A).

Both passages show the gift of languages being used a confirmatory sign. It would seem that the sign in these passages was used as a confirmatory message of the Spirit to the church as a whole, validating the messages that the life in the Kingdom of Jesus was for all and that belief in the Jesus Messiah was the only sufficient way to come into this kingdom. 1 Corinthians (which we will dive into presently) definitely indicates clearly that tongues is not a sign for believers, but is a sign for unbelievers (1 Cor 14:22). This messes with my interpretation a little bit.

There are a few possible reconciliations to this, but here is what I deem to be the most likely and most fitting with the whole of scripture on the gift of languages. Paul is talking about the primary use of the gift, a sign for unbelievers; however, God could given the gift to the believers discussed for a dual purpose: both as a sign for unbelievers and in order to affirm to the believers that these people truly had become believers. We see a similar dual usage of the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians. Paul says, "prophecy, however, is for believers, not for unbelievers" (1 Cor 14:22), but says soon after that an unbeliever coming in during a prophetic message may be led to repent of their sins and worship God. So, for the gift of prophecy, we see that though Paul clearly says it is for believers and not for unbelievers, he also notes a use of prophecy that is for unbelievers. The best reconciliation of these two dichotomous statements (found within the same handful of sentences) is that Paul's statement about prophecy being for believers was about the typical usage and primary purpose of the gift, but did not necessarily mean that the gift couldn't have some atypical usages or secondary purposes involving unbelievers. It certainly would not be a stretch to say that the gift of languages works in the exact opposite way: it is primarily a sign for unbelievers but there are cases in which the gift has a secondary purpose or secondary purposes. One such purpose is for new believers to be confirmed as Spirit-filled participators in the kingdom.

Alrighty… this is still long… we'll work through 1 Corinthians 12-14 in the next post...

Tongues of Angels: Really... Angels?

So, let's just get it out clearly here so you know where I'm at with this. I don't believe that the speaking in tongues of the charismatic and pentecostal worlds is what Scripture talks about when it discusses speaking in tongues. I don't think that speaking nonsense syllables in a way that seems uncontrolled and random is something that comes from the Spirit, nor would I think that a systematic speaking of nonsense syllables is from God. I don't believe that speaking in tongues refers to the speaking of a heavenly language here on earth. I don't believe the mysterious things of the Spirit are unintelligible.

What do I believe about speaking in tongues? Well, I believe that the best translation of the Greek word, glōssa, is actually "languages." I believe that we should be talking about speaking in different languages and not in tongues. Because of all of the experiential background and what people have been taught, it's easy to see Scripture talking about "tongues" and automatically see the usage of the terminology as a validation of the widespread contemporary practice of speaking in tongues. When we look at the whole of Scripture, it makes a lot more sense to use the term "languages" instead of "tongues" to translate glōssa. The word does literally mean tongue, but it is simplistic and illogical to read passages about speaking in "unknown tongues" or "hear every man in our own tongue" while visualizing a physical tongue as what is being talked about. It is also important to note that in Scripture there is not a distinguishing between the words used to describe different languages and the words to describe the spiritual gift of speaking in tongues; both concepts are described using the word glōssa. An example of the use of this word to describe languages is found in Revelation 5:9: "… and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." The word here only makes sense when we interpret "tongue" as meaning "language." Thus I will be using "language(s)" to translate the Biblical word glōssa throughout this post. When I talk about the charismatic tongues speaking, I will use the term "tongues."

I believe that the spiritual gift of speaking in languages enables Spirit-filled believers who have the gift to speak the languages of the people around them. The believer never actually goes through the process of learning the language of the people that they are speaking to, but they speak to those people about Jesus Christ, and it comes out of their mouths in the language, even the very dialect, of the people that are listening. It's an incredible manifestation of the Spirit in the lives of the believers, with a purpose that is in line with all the gifts in the church, it is used to grow the kingdom of God.

This is what we see clearly portrayed in the very first manifestation of this gift of the Spirit. In Acts 2:3 something that looked like tongues of fire seemed to sit on each of the believers, then the believers began to speak in heterais(other, different) glossais(tongues or languages). They were obviously not speaking in unintelligible languages, but in languages that made sense. Those that heard the disciples speaking the message of Jesus, heard them in their own language and dialect even though they all had very different native tongues. If they had heard them speaking in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, that's unimpressive. If they heard them speaking in syllables that have do not have correlates in an actual language, that’s just useless. The gift of tongues as portrayed here is used to preach the message of Jesus Christ in a way that both dissolves language barriers and is a miraculous sign for those who do not yet believe (1 Cor. 14:22), leaving them "amazed and perplexed."

The initial use of the spiritual gift of languages is a precedent for evaluating the gift in other texts because it was the earliest usage setting the groundwork for the gift, the passage includes a detailed description of the gift actually in use, and the Acts 2 passage shows better than any other passage the potential power of the gift. In no other passage do we find such a fastidious description of the gift being used. Thus, Acts 2 should provide our foundational materials for framing a theology of the gift of languages. We should interpret other passages in light of the Acts 2 event, instead of interpreting Acts 2 in light of other Acts passages or 1 Corinthians 12-14. I hope to look at the other passages that mention the spiritual gift through the lens of Acts 2, but in such a way that the lens enhances the picture, without blinding me from seeing what the other passages are actually saying.

Jesus prophesies about the disciples' future ministry saying, "And these signs will accompany those that believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages" (Mk 16:17). Many use this verse as a proof text of speaking in tongues. The argument is that the word new, kainais, necessarily means that the languages spoken are those that are not yet created or those that no one has ever heard before. This is a sensible interpretation, but kainais here could very well mean that the languages are new to the speakers, that the speakers have never previously known the languages that they were speaking. Chinese is unknown to me, and if I suddenly learned it, I would certainly call it a new language in my linguistic repertoire. For something to be new, it doesn't have to be new to everyone, but new to an individual. To read this passage as talking about languages that are completely novel is reading into the text something that it might mean, but doesn't necessarily imply. The passage in question does not suffice to supplant the typical view of speaking in tongues, but neither does it evidence the theology of heavenly nonsense syllables.

This is getting really long. We'll call this part 1, and I'll deal with two other passages in Acts and 1 Corinthians 12-14 in the next post, and after that answer some questions.

Tongues of Angels: "Snao theunsth ntehuantheu aunhna!" Sorry, I Didn't Get That...

Speaking in tongues is a really interesting phenomenon that has been around in the world of Christianity (especially particular groups) for a long time. It's often found in movements within Christianity labeled "charismatic" or "pentecostal." Surely there are people who speak in tongues, and have a pentecostal-like interpretation of tongues, that don't consider themselves to be either charismatic or pentecostal. Additionally, there are likely others that would consider themselves charismatic that have a different perspective on speaking in tongues. The point isn't the denomination or movement affiliation, but the beliefs about what speaking in tongues actually means.

To many individuals, speaking in tongues means uttering words through the power of the Holy Spirit that are from a language unknown on earth. Whether these languages are actually used in heaven or not isn't something that tongues-speakers are generally worried about, the point is that they are from the Spirit of God. These languages are used for prayer in community and in private, as well as, more rarely, teaching and prophecy when there is an interpreter around. They are a signifier of the presence of the Spirit of God in the lives of those who are believers in the spiritual. When people speak in tongues they generally use syllables that flow well together off the tongue, but don't actually formulate words that make sense in English (or other languages found on earth).

In theory (according to the Scriptures) these tongues would only be spoken in public worship when there was someone there to interpret the words that were said, and "if there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church." (1 Cor 14:28), because "Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air." (1 Cor 14:9). Also, there would only be "one at a time" speaking, and at the absolute most three during any worship service (1 Cor 14:27). Within the church, those that speak in tongues would not for a second think that because the Spirit of God gave them the ability to speak in tongues they were more spiritual than those that do not speak in tongues. For the Scriptures are clear, "There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit" and the rhetorical questions of Paul make it quite obvious that not all speak in tongues or have a particular gift of the Spirit, but all of the gifts are "given for the common good" (1 Cor 12:4, 12:29-31, 12:7).

In practice (according to the Scriptures) these tongues are widely misused and thought of wrongly. In practice, in places where tongues are spoken, they are generally spoken by more than three people over the course of a service and they are often spoken by more than one person at a time. There is very rarely someone there that actually understands what is being said by those speaking in tongues who can interpret what is said for everyone that hears what is said in tongues. These unintelligible words without an interpreter are often spoken in services despite the lack of an interpreter and so are not only useless for the community, but have destructive effects for the community, such as causing those who do not yet believe to think that Jesus followers are out of their mind (1 Cor 14:23). Many people say that speaking in tongues is something that happens when the Holy Spirit speaks to them and is beyond their control, they must speak out; however, Scripture says that "the spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace" (1 Cor 14:32-33). If the spirit of the one with the gift of prophecy is under control of the one with that gift, does it not also make sense that the spirit of the one with the gift of tongues is also under control of that person? Sure does. The precept of Scripture for a person to hold their tongue while someone else is speaking and to keep quiet under certain circumstances implies that the individual that speaks in tongues is able to control their tongue in spite of their spirit.

The biggest way that I have seen tongues misused is in the way non-tongues speakers have been hurt, judged, ostracized, and looked down upon by those that do speak in tongues. There is this really strange attitude amongst many speakers in tongues *note, certainly not all* that if a person speaks in tongues, then they are more spiritual than the person does not speak in tongues. In many congregations a spiritual elitism clandestinely festers, one that puts those that speak in tongues above those that don't. Some congregations, even denominations, have the idea that there is a second baptism of the Spirit out of which a person speaks in tongues. If a person doesn't speak in tongues, then they obviously haven't had this second spiritual baptism and so are less spiritual. These ideas lead to senses of superiority in those that do speak in tongues and hurt feelings and indignation amongst those that do not speak in tongues.

Even a cursory reading of 1 Cor 12-14 clearly demonstrates that ideas about tongues being a sign of superior spirituality or a gift of the Spirit that everyone should have are foolish ideas. They are contrabiblical ideas. They are arrogant ideas. They are lies of the evil one. Tongues is deliberately listed last in Paul's listing of gifts. Tongues are not said to be gifts we should strive for and are lesser gifts because they do not lead to the edification of the church body. If you have been a part of a church that has taught that tongues are for the more spiritual, that speaking in tongues somehow leads to a higher spirituality, or that all should speak in tongues, then you've been taught lies. Irrefutably, 1 Corinthians eliminates the possibility of tongues being a spiritual gift that allows for spiritual superiority or is a necessary sign of the presence of the Spirit of Jesus Christ in our lives. The fruit of the Spirit, that which we will know Spirit filled people by, is Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control. We are not to know those filled with the Spirit by their spiritual gifts, but by the way they keep in step with the Spirit in their everyday lives (Galatians 5:22-25).

So, I've said quite a bit, but not nearly as much as I want to. What I've tried to address here is some of the common problems plaguing speaking in tongues today that are hurting people and keeping people from God. What I've said so far is pretty difficult to disagree with theologically or refute the validity of my points. You can if you want, but I guarantee that your arguments don't hold much water. My words differ little from what God in Scripture has already said on the matter and don't really say anything new. In my next post, my goal is not to say something new or to be contrary, but to formulate a relatively brief theology of speaking in tongues that looks at individual passages in relationship to Scripture as a whole. As a result of this, to some I will be saying something new and to many I will be saying something that goes against their experience and what they believe to be true about the gift of speaking in tongues. My purpose is merely to present an articulated theology that I believe line up best with what the inerrant Spirit-breathed Scriptures say about speaking in tongues.

The Jesus Turning Point

I was thinking about some of the stuff I've written and one common theme that weaves in and out of my posts... God Changing Things. Here are a few paragraphs from multiple past posts that are encouraging to me (you'd think what I write would stick in my head, but it doesn't) because they remind me of just what the Messiah has done and does for my life - the way that His Presence completely shifts the reality that I'm living in.

Taken From "The Next Thing"
But my discontentment comes because I have a prurient desire for what is next. Admittedly, I am impacted by the culture around me and my mind has ludicrous credos that keep me from living the life God has called me to live. One of those is that the next thing is the thing. The next break I have will give me all the life I need. Going back to school will be where it's at. Happiness will be procured once I get A, B, or C. And I find myself a wee bit (sometimes more than a "wee") disgruntled where I'm at. The problem is not that I don't have enough, but that I'm looking to the future and miss out on what I have. And what do I have?

The unsurpassable, incomprehensible, insurmountable, inseparable, undeniable, uncontainable, uncontrollable, unstoppable, unquenchable, undeserved love of God in Christ Jesus my Lord. That's enough. More than. What is here and now is good, very, very good.

Taken From Oh the Ludicrous Cross
As humans, we have been born with an intrinsic sense of what ethical behavior is. When we sin, we sense it. We feel guilty. Because of our inherent ethic, we become guilty. In becoming guilty we acquire the weight of that guilt, and guilt, though immaterial, does not just disappear. It has to go somewhere. Although sometimes it does not stay with us emotionally and our calloused hearts may no longer sense it, the guilt remains upon us.

Back to Christ, on the cross. The perfect human. The perfect sacrifice for our sins. It is there on the cross that our guilt went somewhere. All of the sin of the past, present, and future was transferred to Christ. When His blood was shed, our sin was shed. With his death was the death of our guilt, for it was all upon Him when He died. His expiation for our sins was the ablution of our souls, freeing us from all sin and opening the door to intimacy with the God of the Universe. Powerful? Heck yeah. Foolishness? Yeah, I suppose so. But sometimes, Love is foolish.

Taken From An Anomalous Death
It separates us from the source of life (God, YHWH, Jesus - in case you're not catching on) because by living in it, by being taken by it, we are living apart from God, moving away from God, becoming more and more unlike the image of God in us. The sin doesn't go away. The effects of sin are eternal. The buildup of the barrier between us and God is unbreakable. We are fated to obtain our wage, to get what we deserve. This is our story. Our reality. There is no hope without an intervention of infinite power.

The cross of Jesus changed everything. God came to us because we could not come to Him. He took our sin from us, he took the guilt, he took the dark ugliness, he took from us what was keeping us from reaching Him… he placed it on Himself, and in a mysterious way only possible within the divine relationship, separated himself from the source of life because of the sin he took on. Then, in dying with the sin of the world on Him - taking for himself what we earned - sin died. What was required for propitiation of sin was the death of the sinner; instead, the one without sin placed it on himself and experienced its consequences of death to the body and spirit.


Taken From Understanding God's Love - Part II: While We Suck
The veracious reality is that because we suck there is nothing we can do to earn God's love. Trying to earn God's love and believing we can only leads to failure, which makes us see ourselves as failures, which leads to more failure, which leads to self-hatred and condemnation. Surprisingly, we must stop trying. When we're trying to become good enough to be loved by God, we're keeping ourselves from accepting God's love. We refuse, for whatever reason, to accept the love he offers. Getting caught up in the desire to and attempt to earn only leads us further and further away from an understanding of the love God has for us, the free love.

Right now, in the middle of my crap, in the middle of your disgusting sin, God loves you and I powerfully, infinitely, perfectly. There's nothing I can do to acquire more of God's love. There's nothing you can do to diminish God's love for you. Although by it's very nature sin is contemptible to God, and we are the purveyors of sin, God loves us. So deep does this love run that He sent His son, a part of Himself, to become the ablution, salvation, and expiation for our sins - opening up the room of God's presence to the entire world. Let go. Acknowledge your sinful heart, end your endeavor to earn God's love, and let the love that is already waiting for you come into your life. It changes everything.

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. - Romans 5:8

Living Well 5: Sin Within to Beauty Without

Human beings are complicated little creatures for sure. We have these strange contrasts within ourselves that problematize any sort of encapsulating statements about human nature. Different sorts of philosophies say very different things about the natural tendencies of humans. A group on one extreme says that humans are essentially evil creatures that are selfish at all costs. The good done by people is only a more subtle way of pleasing and acquiring for the self. Another group believes that people are basically good. Bad behavior is the result of social problems and outside obstacles, not the evil in the person themselves. A third group thinks that humans are essentially neutral, neither inherently bad or good, just a product of their genes, learning, and environment.

None of these seem to really satisfy the intellect or the soul. The first, that humans are inherently evil, completely takes away our value. Something cannot be pure evil and have any real value at the same time. Every beautiful act of kindness or altruism would have to be seen as a product of the individual acting for their own gain. It just doesn't sit right in our guts, it doesn’t make sense with what our souls know to be true - there's something beautiful about us.

The second idea, that humans are inherently good and it is only the social problems that create bad outside circumstances that cause people to engage in bad behavior. There are a few problems with this. One, who created the bad circumstances if people are inherently good? Social and family problems might be contributors to evil behavior, but don't people make up societies and families? People are also capable of choosing their own actions and behavior and are not a mere product of their societies. Inherently good people choose good regardless of the outside influences. I also believe that as individuals, if we are to be honest with ourselves, we can feel that we are not completely good, we can sense that there is some sort of ugliness to our nature, something that makes us desire that which is evil. It'd be nice if we were purely good, but there is something nasty in our hearts.

The idea of human behavior being morally neutral and their behavior is only a product of the natural world has some similar problems. If human behavior comes from conditions outside of the realm of control of the individual, then the individual is not actually personally responsible for their actions. An individual must have true free will, the ability to make decisions in a manner that transcends conditions, for the individual to be responsible for what they do. Otherwise, the responsibility lies on the external conditions. That seemed like a tangent, but I'm just making the point that if people are morally neutral, then no one can be held responsible for what they do. Our souls don’t sit well with the idea that we don't have real control over our own lives, only an illusion of control. It's because the ability to choose what we do is real and is influenced by, but not determined by, the environment.

Scripture's picture of the nature of human nature is a little different and similar to these other views. Everyone is sinful from birth. People are born into sin and their tendencies are toward dishonoring and hurting themselves, God, and others. The individual has this part of them that is really dirty, really ugly, and really messes with their lives. This part of us makes us capable of knowingly injuring, sometimes destroying, the lives of others. No one is exempt. There is no one that is righteous, not a single one. All have done wrong and have an inborn capacity to sin that comes from inborn desires for the wrong things. We are screwed up people.

And then, there's this other story. People are beautiful beyond words. We sometimes have a hard time seeing this in ourselves because we are more likely to see our crap instead of what is wonderful about us. We can see it in others though. Everyone of us knows someone whose heart is breathtaking. Others can see it in us too. It's there. We are amazing creatures, made in the very image of God with immeasurable value. Just so it's clear, the value of the splendor God placed inside of us far exceeds the nastiness of the sin that resides in us.

Um, so, that's complicated. That's difficult. The way that works out in real life is confusing. It's true though. Awing wonder and awful horror are aspects of every human being. This is relieving and frustrating. Why were we made with these two natures? Why were we not created beautiful alone? The answer is that we were, but the world is not as it once was. What do we do now? How do we get rid of that which dirties us?

This is where Jesus comes in. For those of us who have decided that the way of the Messiah is to be the way of our lives, Jesus has offered separation from the crap inside of ourselves. For those that believe in the Messiahship, divinity, and power of the death and resurrection of Jesus, may also be free from the part of them that is sinful. Romans lays this out a little bit for us… "through Jesus Christ the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death… and so he condemned sin in sinful man" Jesus frees us from the law that works within us and, avoiding condemnation of us, condemns the ugliness inside of us. If the law of sin that works within us is condemned to death by God, then, well, it's as good as dead. Therefore, because we have been freed from that part and it is doomed to death, that part of us no longer is a real part of us. Who we are, and the sin inside of us become separate. Humanity left to their own nature is stuck with both the splendid and atrocious aspects of their nature. Through God, those who are being saved have only the splendid. They are only defined by the wonderful parts of who they are.

Still, for us who pursue God, the sinful nature is still within us. Also in Romans it says, "For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members… Now, if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I that do it, but sin living in me that does it." So, there is still sin within us that works against us, but because of the work of Christ, the sin within us is no longer a part of who we are. We are not sinful by nature, but our very nature has been changed so that we are by nature creatures of the law of the Spirit of life. We still have the option of being sinful though. We can still choose to live from our sinful nature.

This is the difficulty of the Christian life. We are by nature beautiful and pure, but have within our bodies a nature that is ugly and full of impurity. We can choose to live out of our sinful nature, but we have to remember that "we are not controlled by the sinful nature, but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in us." All who belong to Christ have this Spirit and this Spirit destroys our sinful nature but brings the righteousness to our spirit that brings life. Because of the work of the Spirit in purifying us and so remaking us into creatures of unfathomable beauty, we have both an obligation and a freedom to live from this Spirit.

We have to recognize and believe that the sin within us is no longer a part of us and no longer has any power over us. Because God has placed His Spirit within us through the death and new life of Christ, the power is now all ours. We're free from sin: its guilt, shame, condemnation, chains, power, influence, and pain. It is our choice then whether to live from sin, and so give it power, or live from the Spirit and the power the Spirit has. We have beauty inside of us beyond what we can ever comprehend. The more that we manifest this beauty through our actions of obedient love toward God and others, the stronger the power of the Spirit of life becomes, and indeed, the more alive we will be. Living well ultimately comes down to living as a child of the God of Life: pure, righteous, free, powerful, and with a beauty that comes from the God of Beauty.

Living Well 4: How Big is Your World?

Everyone tends toward selfishness. In many ways it is the natural and logical move. We are the closest person to us. We know exactly how we feel, exactly what we're thinking, and exactly how we react. Our entire life involves being around and, in a sense, interacting with, ourselves. Given the amount of time and energy we put into ourselves, it then seems like a logical progression to the idea that we should live selfishly, caring primarily about number one.

A lot of people would agree with me that selfishness is a negative thing, but a lot of people live in a world that is centered around themselves anyway. Most of our thoughts are self-centered. We may not be thinking about how we can best manipulate others to benefit ourselves or specifically how to optimize how much we can best satisfy ourselves, but our thoughts and desires often reflect a world where we are the center. We think about what we're going to eat, what we're going to wear, what we're going to say, how people will respond to us, whether our finances will be okay, who we're going to hang out with, what we're going to do, how we're going to spend our time, etc. etc. I make too many lists.

These things aren't inherently bad things to think about, but it's when we think about them in such a way that we are the focal point of everything, where we are first and foremost concerned about how things will affect us. When we are the center of our lives, we have a very small world. When I am the focus of what I think, say, and do, my world is only as big as I am. Which isn't very big. The meaning and purpose of our lives is found in how to get the most pleasure and the least pain. In this small world, everything that happens in relation to us is a big deal, creating problems that seem overwhelming Our lives then often become full of worry and our fears hinder us.

I like what Erwin McManus recently said about fear. "Whatever we fear establishes the boundaries and limitations for our life." If we're in a self-focused world, there is so much to be afraid of because there is so much around us that can have negative effects on us. If we chose to stop focusing on ourselves, the size of our world increases dramatically. If we chose to focus on people, then our world is as big as everyone around us. Our thought focus is then not on how to best look out for ourselves, but to look out for others. Our problems become a lot less small when our goal is not to acquire the maximum amount of pleasure for ourselves.

What if we chose to allow our lives to be centered around something bigger, say, God? That's a huge world that includes others, but also includes a Being that is bigger than others. If we place God at the center of our lives, we free ourselves from so many limitations. No problem is big compared to the infinite Creator God. Everything that once worried us and seemed overwhelming is now insignificant. Our lives also become loaded with purpose and meaning because the goal of our life is so much bigger and so much more important. No goal is bigger than the glorification of God. There is nothing as freeing and beautiful as living with God-centered lives in a God-sized world.

Living Well 3: Wise Thoughts and Foolish Behavior

We have an amazing ability to fool ourselves into thinking we're a lot better than we actually are. I see it all the time, not just in others, but in myself. People generally know the right thing to do. Some situations can become pretty ethically complex, and figuring out just what is right becomes pretty difficult. But in the majority of situations people know what the right thing to do is. When it comes to following God, the Scriptures provide us with so many principles and exhortations to act in particular ways that are in accordance with the will of God (and so lead to life).

The problem is typically not that we don't know, but that we don't do. Most of us want to be good, and for those that claim Christ as Lord, they want to follow Him with their lives. Desire isn't the problem either. When it comes to hypothetical situations, a good portion of people would say that they would act in a way that was honoring to God. If our Master Jesus Himself came to us and made a request of us, most of us would say "Yes" without hesitation; however, even when we have said, "yes" to God and know what we would do in a hypothetical situation, when reality hits and we are in the thick of life with a lot of conflicting wants and felt needs, we so often don't do what we said and thought that we would do.

Jesus tells us an illustrative parable remarking on something quite similar.
"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. De went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
"'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.
"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
Isn't it obvious? Picture yourself as the father. Although it would be disappointing to have your son reject you and speak disobediently, all would be easily relationally remedied if the son then showed his regret of his vocal disobedience by acting in obedience. The other son's words would be welcome at first, but when it was found that the other son didn't follow through, the words would be meaningless lies because of the disconnect between what the son said he would do and what he actually did. Actions speak sometimes what words alone cannot. Words are important, but have no foundation without a life that reflects those words.

Scripture often links loving God with obeying God. This is quite sensible. You don't love someone by talking nice about them, nice to them, thanking them for what they've done, and then living a life that dishonors that person. That's not love. You don't love someone by telling them you care about them and having strong feelings for them, but then acting in ways that hurt them. That's not love. Love toward God includes words and feelings, but is primarily founded on a life that reflects those words and feelings, driven by a heart that truly wants to actively love God.

Sometimes, like those that Jesus told his parable to, we think that because we know what the right thing to do is and because we, truly, most of the time want to do that right thing, that then we are good, healthy, wise, loving, and obedient people. Words and action are not the same though. Having a deep understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, God's way and the way of sin, doesn't mean a whole lot without a life lived according to these realities. James puts it this way: Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him or her show it by his/her good life; by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. He doesn't say to show it by good advice, articulate thoughts, demonstrating knowledge, or reciting Scripture. Wise living proves wisdom. Righteous living proves right beliefs. Goodness proves that one understands what good is.

Join me. Let us never be content with having knowledge, wisdom, or understanding alone. Demonstrate your comprehension of these things with your behavior. Living well necessitates thinking well, but thinking well is not adequate. Live a life of love toward God and others. Let us get rid of any disconnect between our wise thoughts and our foolish behavior. Let what we would do in a hypothetical situation be what we actually do in a real life circumstance. The more we do this, the closer we become to being who we want to be: people that live well.

A few beauts

Don't tell anyone, but this is me breaking into the house...

Buying a home in North Minneapolis

Taking a short break from my normal type of post, I just wanted to throw it out there that my little brother and I are going to be buying a house relatively soon in North Minneapolis. We're hopefully going to make an offer on one today. It's pretty exciting for a number of reasons...
1. I never thought I'd be able to afford a house.
2. The housing market situation potentially makes it possible for us to have a supplemented income with having multiple properties and renters.
3. I'm almost in Minneapolis.
4. I get to live in a brand new city near wherever FTC would be.

We'll post some pictures soon. They are all a little run down, but we'll get our lucky home looking pretty sassy before too long.

Here are some questions that I'm dealing with right now as I think about moving. Any comments and help with them would be appreciated.

How do I love well as I leave Eau Claire? How do I leave my closest friends in a manner that shows them how much they mean to me and how awesome they have been for me? How do I get connected in my new city? How do I learn about the culture of a new place? How do I express to them my love for them? How do I begin conversations about the spiritual with people, not so I can throw the three step gospel program at them, but so I can build a relationship with them and gently, constantly, show them Christ in words and speech? How often should I visit Eau Claire?

Live today well,
-jeremiah

Living Well 2: What are we living for?

I actually just had a conversation with a friend yesterday that brought us to this topic a little bit. It was interesting because I had already began this post with no intention of finishing, but, now seeing the pertinence of the topic, here it is:

Referencing the last post, taking control of our own lives is a beautiful, difficult, and necessary first step toward living well, and something that must be done with a degree of regularity, because I guarantee that if you're human, sometimes you'll lose control over your own lives and find yourself thinking things you don't want to think and doing things you don't want to do. You will lose control sometimes. It's okay. You have to have the drive and desire to take your life back no matter how many times you lose control or how impossible it might seem. The motivation for controlling and maintaining control of our lives comes from our ultimate goals, our ultimate pursuit.

What are you living for? What is the purpose behind what you do? Where do you find meaning for the humdrum of the everyday? Humans inevitably search for some sort of ultimate meaning and purpose in their lives. I think this is why we find religion as a centerpiece and inextricable component of every human culture known to man. An essential intellectual pursuit of the philosophers across history, that has led to many different conclusions, is the quest for discovering what the ultimate goal of life is - or if there even is one.

The question of what the meaning of life is an important question to ask because the answer determines whether what we do is actually of any importance. If there is no answer to the question, if there is no ultimate purpose in life, then that means a few things for us. One, we can do absolutely anything we want without hesitation or fear of doing something wrong. Since it really doesn't matter what we do, then we feel free to do any whimsical thing we please because we don't have to feel guilty about the important things that we are not doing. The second thing it would mean for us if there were no ultimate goal, is that nothing we do is of any significance. We are insignificant, our actions are insignificant, and when all is said and done, it really doesn't matter if we initiate a genocide or end human trafficking. If there is an answer to the question, and we don't know it or have the right answer, then we aren't living the way we should be. If we have the right answer to the question and choose not to live by it, then we're living lives devoid of meaning. We might as well not believe in any meaning at all.

There is a pretty common philosophy in modern American culture about finding meaning in life. Summed briefly, the philosophy is that every individual needs to create their own meaning in life. There is no absolutely ultimate meaning, there is no overarching, supernatural purpose that includes all. The "ultimate" purpose for the life of the individual is for that individual to do what they think is meaningful and purposeful. In this way, one can believe that there is no grand meaning to our existence but still have a sense of purpose in their lives, and in that way find fulfillment. That ideas seems pretty nice, but then, even if we a sense of purpose and meaning, in actuality our lives don't have any real purpose or meaning - we're living in a false, self-created reality. If indeed there is no higher reality than our meager lives, then this way of personal meaning is sensible, but one must deliberately forget the fact that they are merely pretending to have meaning in a life that is truly meaningless.

Living well means living for something, but not just anything. It's about living for something that is true, for something that satisfies personal meaning because it is full of ultimate meaning. My views are probably pretty clear by now. I believe in ultimate purpose because I believe in an Ultimate Creator that loving endowed us with the responsibility of carrying out tasks that contribute to the formation of something that is ultimately good. To participate in this, what we need to live for is not a thing, goal, or idea, but a Being. A life of obedience to the One that loved, designed, created, saves, and sustains us is the way to real meaning. This obedience is why we have to take control of our own lives. We are not to take control of our lives so that we have control, because this will lead us nowhere worthwhile. We take control of our lives so that we can give them up, and live obediently to the God who knows how we are to live, to the God who loves us so much that He wants to fill our lives with a purpose beautiful beyond imagination.

Living Well 1: Passive Movement or Assertive Engagement?

Life is wonderful. Life is full of joy. Life is precious. Life is powerful. Life is a gift. Life is peaceful. Life is enjoyable. Life is fun. Life is productive. Life is fantastic. Life is purposeful. Life is hard. Life is long. Life is tedious. Life is boring. Life is painful. Life is a pain. Life is laborious. Life is dull. Life is pointless.

There's a lot that can be said about what we're doing right now, living. It's a thing of such opposites. Many people hate their lives. Many people love their lives. It's such an individual thing. Some of it is perspective. Some of it is goals. Much of it is the way that we choose to live. Loving life and being full of it necessitates living life well. This is one of those difficult tasks that is so worthwhile. One thing that we must do to live well is to assertively engage with the world around us.

Often our modus operandi in this world is to get caught up in the current of life and gently swim with it. There is so much movement, so much going on, and so many alternative behavior choices. Many forces in our various individual environments affect us and are drawing, pushing, pulling, compelling, or some other word that means the world around us is an influential force. These forces can be categorized as external social forces and internal individual forces.

The culture has its way of doing things and the vast majority of people in this nation are living their lives as a part of the mass movement of culture. There is a particular way of doing things, of living and functioning socially that is deemed correct and acceptable to the culture. It's very easy to get caught up in whatever this way of doing things is (which changes depending on age, location, and time) and simply live this way. Doing so means that we are socially accepted members of the majority. There are many socially mediated consequences of moving against the cultural norm and social acceptance is often only granted by living by some sort of cultural norm. Often the way that the large culture as a whole actually has an impact on the individual person is through the smaller social group(s) of the individual.

The force exerted by a small group of friends is stronger on the individual than the large scale culture. Every different grouping of people has different sets of implicit rules and regulations of proper beliefs, attitudes, and conduct that persons within the group should adhere to. The broad culture impacts these cultural subsets and it is mainly these cultural subsets (often can be read "groups of friends") that exert a force over the individual, for it is the individuals within the group that socially enforce the implicit rules of the culture. Terms like "peer pressure" explain this cultural enforcement. The internal understanding of the rules of a particular group of friends or others is necessary in order to feel the social pressure exerted to behave in a particular way. This pressure can be felt by groups ranging from 2 to infinity, not necessarily of a stronger pull with more people. The pressure is real and often so are the consequences of acting out of line with the principles that guide the behavior of particular groups. Thus, there is good reason to live life according to the culture that one is within, moving along with its flow, avoiding the pain and difficulty of moving against the current.

Then, there's us and our own internal reasons for living our lives a particular way. We've got our own issues. One of the reasons that we tend to move along with the flow of everything is because we have always moved along with the flow of everything. We choose not to change our lives because we have always done things this way. Sometimes, there is no better reason than that. Our habitual thoughts, beliefs, actions, and reactions can become like a rut in the road. Turning out of the rut is difficult and it's much easier to stay within the rut than to break out of it and move the vehicle in a new direction. Our habits of all sorts become so deeply ingrained in our lives that they become the way that we naturally do things and it's really hard to change habits. There are many other internal factors (like laziness or fear of change) that make it difficult to change and easy to keep living life with the flow of the world around us and in the rut of how we've always done things.

So, all that was a little long, underdeveloped, and not written with much clarity or depth, but the point is simple: it's easier and simpler to passively move through life than it is to live differently. That's why we tend to go with the flow. I think that the reason we do this is that we just don't quite get it. We don't have an answer to the question of why we should live differently. Living passively isn't actually going to get us anywhere but right where everyone else is going, and most people have no idea where that is. If we do not assertively engage life, then we are doomed to float along the river on our way to nowhere. The ease of floating through life is a benefit far less significant than the cost of missing out on life. The things that are most desirable and satisfying in life are those things that take work to get and require living differently than everyone else and differently than we're living now.

Living well means taking an active role in our daily lives. To live well we must master our own thoughts, beliefs, words, actions, and reactions. We have to engage the world instead of being compelled by it. So many of us want a good life. It is a natural human longing to want a life full of meaning, where we, happy and whole, act according to the purpose that brings meaning to our lives. Only when we take control of our own lives can we actually live well.

How do we do this? It's already been given to us. Humans are created such that they have power to decide what they do. We have the capacity to choose to do whatever we would like to with our own lives. It's not easy to grab hold of ourselves and start breaking habits and moving in a direction opposite of the flow of the culture, but it's necessary. It's worthwhile. As we become the acting rulers over ourselves and take responsibility for our own actions, we become capable of moving our lives in whatever direction we want. To be who we want to be and do what we want to do we must first have the freedom that comes from being able to move in any direction, regardless of how much opposition is in our way. We already have the ability to do this, we just have to do it.

An Anomalous Death

Religion across time and cultures is full of people working, sacrificing, and acting in a manner in some way designed to get to the divine. Some have sacrificed anything from the smallest of animals, to human children to please the gods and obtain their favor. Some religions focus on meditation, on performing an impossible clearing of all desire so that the divine may enter the mind and be experienced. Other religions have an intense list of rules that need to be followed without deviation so that god will not be displeased and allow the follower to live in a blessed post-death life. Religions across time and locale have a million variations on what man has to do to attain the favor and presence of the divine.

The common theme throughout is this idea of separation. There is some sort of divide, some sort of barrier in the world or in us that is keeping us from the presence and favor of whatever supernatural force is out there. The vast majority of religions prescribe actions that must be taken by humans to get to the divine. The teachings of Christianity are that the divide that exists was caused by us, is inevitably in us, and cannot be changed by us. It calls this barrier sin. Everyone has sinned. No one is righteous. It requires a righteousness beyond what anyone has ever had to acquire the divine. It is not within the power of humans to overcome the barrier that is keeping them from the divine. Our actions are fated to fail to bring us to God.

So God did something about it. The story of Christianity, and indeed, I believe, the real story of humanity, is that God, knowing our inability to fix the errors we made that bar us from Him, stepped into our realm to defeat the sin in us that keeps us from the favor and presence of God. The real story of the world is not that people are desperate for the divine, but that the Divine has shown himself wonderfully desperate for us.

Desperate enough to die. It's a pretty familiar thing here in the U.S. with the pervasiveness of Christianity, but if one stops to think about it, it sure sounds frickin' weird. Yeahp, I'm gonna save the world by dying for it. We think that it takes a lot more dramatic action. In our minds, at least in my own, it seems that the defeat of sin necessitates a lot of punitive measures and constant monitoring of the behavior of everyone. It requires the dealing with all circumstances that cause sin. I don't know all that the defeat of sin would entail, but dying a shameful death??? Really? Sounds foolish.

What is actually required, however, was not a stronger action, but an infinite love for God and people. This is what Jesus had. He had love for God such that Jesus would not do anything to sacrifice his intimacy with Him - Jesus would not sin because he longed so much for deep intimacy. Yet, he took on all sin and gave up that intimacy, not as an act of rebellion, but as an act of obedience to God and love for the people he came to save from their sins. The love of Christ is unparalleled. No one could take on sin who was already full of it. No one could give up intimacy when they didn't have it. Only a perfect man, like the unflawed lamb, could give himself up for other with efficacy.

This is not the story of divine wrath. It is not about God being so unable to contain his anger that he had to destroy something beautiful (movie reference, anyone?). There is a cost to sin… actually, it is less a cost and more an earning. What we earn by sinning is death. That is our wage. It separates us from the source of life (God, YHWH, Jesus - in case you're not catching on) because by living in it, by being taken by it, we are living apart from God, moving away from God, becoming more and more unlike the image of God in us. The sin doesn't go away. The effects of sin are eternal. The buildup of the barrier between us and God is unbreakable. We are fated to obtain our wage, to get what we deserve. This is our story. Our reality. There is no hope with an intervention of infinite power.

The cross of Jesus changed everything. God came to us because we could not come to Him. He took our sin from us, he took the guilt, he took the dark ugliness, he took from us what was keeping us from reaching Him… he placed it on Himself, and in a mysterious way only possible within the divine relationship, separated himself from the source of life because of the sin he took on. Then, in dying with the sin of the world on Him - taking for himself what we earned - sin died. What was required for propitiation of sin was the death of the sinner, instead, the one without sin placed it on himself and experienced its consequences of death of the body and spirit.

But we have the option of keeping our sin. We can hang onto it and experience separation from God in physical life, and experience the complete absence of God (again, the source of all life) in death. Or we can, like the Jews did with their animal sacrifices, place our sins and sinful heart on Jesus and allow Him to take our sin to the grave. This requires sacrifice because in giving up our sin we sometimes give up things that seem to give us life, but this way that seems right leads to death. Our sacrifice is completely insignificant compared to the sacrifice of Jesus, and just like Jesus and his sacrifice, we sacrifice our sin for the joy set before us, because giving up our sinful selves means the acquisition of intimacy with the God of life and the experience of freedom from things we may never have known were chaining us. God leaves the result of the story of Jesus up to me and you. Choose life with me.

Help me with my writing and thinking… where are my thoughts unclear? Where does my writing get in the way of my thoughts?

A bunch of thoughts on a general political theology

These are utterly incomplete, it just might be a while before I get around to thinking about this again... any responses would be helpful.

Complexity. Ambiguity. Difficulty. Those concepts run through my head when I think about how I am to act in the political realm as a follower of Jesus. I am theologically challenged by it. For the first time in a while, I'm taking the challenge and seeking the answer in Scripture.

I begin with the new testament because I'm living under the new covenant. I also begin with the words of Christ, as He is my Rabbi and His interpretations of Scripture are those that I choose to live by. Sorry for the lack of Scripture references. It becomes a little tedious to cite every single reference to Scripture. Those familiar with the NIV version will likely notice a lot of similar language.

Jesus had no issue eating with tax collectors. He never told them that they should leave their profession because it was inherently sinful to work for the government as a Jew. He praised the faith of the Centurion who fought for the ruling authorities. He doesn't even work directly against the authorities when they are being unjust (as with John the Baptist). His confrontation seems to exclusively be with the religious leaders instead of the political system, despite the reality that the political rulers and system was pretty screwed up.

Generally, as demonstrated by his discussion of paying taxes to Caesar (Mthw 22:15-22), Jesus avoids conflict with the government and doesn't hold them responsible for the social wrongs, even though He does warn His followers to watch out for the yeast of Herod - warning them in some way of how his sinful way of life can spread through the culture and negatively affect their actions (Mk 8:14-15). This is more about general personal morality and Herod happens to be someone who can negatively affect that because of his position. The warning stands today I think: do not fall into the trap of being sinfully impacted by the religious or political authorities. He blames Satan and He blames the Jewish people who have not been the light of the world. It is the responsibility of those people that know God to bring all YHWH is to the world. The Gentile government cannot be expected to right what is wrong, especially since the government of the world is under the influence of the king of this world. Certainly it can be said of my Lord and Savior that He did not talk or live as if the best way to build the Kingdom is to be heavily concerned by the actions of the government. The best way to bring YHWH is to pray, to talk of Him, to battle the Spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms, and to actively love people by rectifying what is wrong in the lives of individuals.

Even at the end of his life, being killed by the Roman government, He minimizes the responsibility of Pilate. Pilate appears confused about Jesus' lack of verbal self defense, asking Jesus, "Don't you realize that I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" Jesus responds in a way that is surprising in that it is neither haughty, nor self-defensive, nor intimidated. Jesus simply, gently, tells the plain truth. Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

Jesus minimizes the responsibility of the government for the wrong being done and emphasizes the responsibility of those who are following YHWH. It is a very interesting move because Pilate does have full control over whether or not Jesus is executed. But those living under YHWH have a greater responsibility than the government. If rectifying the government were the answer, then Jesus would have talked more about the rectification of the government. But He doesn't.

The Messiah talks about how to live at peace with the ruling powers and as for their injustices, Jesus gives some peaceful ways to gently resist the ruling authorities and elucidate the unfairness of their laws (Matthew 5:39-41). These things are political actions, but they make up a small portion of Jesus' teachings. He doesn't fight against them, condemn them, or work toward righting the evils of the Roman Empire. Jesus is about those chosen by and who chose YHWH being the light of the world, and so it is to the Jews that Jesus directs His injunctions to be the light of the world by living justly, mercifully, lovingly, walking humbly with YHWH. As followers of this man we must take responsibility rather than placing it on someone else. Living righteously - both in how we act and how we relate - is vital to being a disciple, vital to making real change. Political work is ancillary.

Satan as ruler of this world

Kingdom of God, lead into OT

Exemplifies avoiding govt. controversy and focusing on people of YHWH

The government certainly seems to be a thing of the world, made necessary by the fall, but not the ideal (these ideas will be discussed in more detail when I touch on the Old Testament). Jesus is pretty clear: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." There is so much in this statement for us to receive as political acters. The way things are done in worldly kingdoms is not the way things are done in God's heavenly kingdom. Although physically we all reside is an earthly kingdom, our citizenship is in heaven first and we should not be surprised to find ourselves thinking and acting like aliens in a foreign land. The use of political power as such is a pretty earthly idea and is not the way that things are done in the kingdom of God. Jesus showed that pretty plainly.

When the followers of the Messiah tried to make him a political king, he wouldn't allow them and he got out of the situation. He wouldn't accept the political position. That was not his form of power and that was not the way that he was going to redeem humanity and make everything right. He wouldn't allow his disciples to fight for him. Jesus even called Peter Satan because Peter had a problem with the way that Jesus said that his kingdom was going to come about. Pilate's questioning of Jesus reveals his confusion over this unorthodox king.

It is confusing. The wisdom of the kingdom, of God, appears foolish to us, but it is the great wisdom, insight, brilliance, and foresight of God. It is the best way. The way to life. It is not the way that we think about kingdoms. It is not the way we think about making things right. The crux of it is in ways and thoughts that are higher than ours.

As far as it depends on us, we are to live at peace with everyone, doing what is right in the eyes of everyone, that we may be in the best position possible to preach the message of Jesus Christ to everyone. It usually doesn't work to preach to a person one has a discordant relationship with. This living at peace with everyone is the same way that we are to act politically. The disciples in Acts demonstrated this interaction with political power perfectly.

As Stephen is being put on trial by the Jewish government (functioning within the Roman government) he does not criticize the faultiness of their trials or discuss their politics, but he speaks into their hearts and lives as individuals and as a religious community. He comes to them as a brother and speaking of their history leads up to Jesus Christ and who He is for them as YHWH's chosen. The focus, even when in court, a centerpiece of politics, is bringing the spiritual message of Jesus.

Paul is an even better example of a man who works within a political system to spread the gospel. Jesus tells his disciples to be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. That's a solid manner of describing how Paul maneuvered politically. After his conversion, he preached about the good news of Jesus like none other. Some people didn't like this. It certainly didn't jive with Roman ideas of authority. Paul pissed off the Jews preaching the gospel. He then had a trial, where he preached the gospel, and was thrown into prison by the Romans, but used his Roman citizenship (having been born in Rome) to obtain a fair trial rather than the injustice he was receiving. Guess what he did at the trial? He spent more time preaching the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is how he interacted with the political community… as if they were all just people in desperate need of the grace of God found in His love through Christ Jesus.

Other New Testament stuff:

Ephesians slaves and masters

Romans 13

1 Cor courtrooms

1 Thess 4:11-12

Titus 3:1-2

1 Tim 2:1-4 - "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for everyone-- for kings and all those in authority, that we may love peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior..."

Old Testament:

Nehemiah

Kinglessness - God as king

Eden ideal

Prophetic ideal

Kingdoms of the world?????