CAUTION: This site isn't yet rewritten to take into account how another human being would 'read' it. These are live, raw notes. (Writing like this helps me focus, but its current form might not be useful to you.)
What my pastor calls "application" of Bible Doctrine (which with maturity progresses to living on it) is called by other names by other pastors. I don't know what your pastor calls this circulatory function. (Watchman Nee, for example, seems to call it "intuition" and "leading" and some other words which sound to those not accustomed to his vocabulary as mystical.)
1Cor2:16+2Pet3:18+Eph3:15-21 (among many other passages) make it clear that the objective of the post-salvation life is to obtain the Thinking of Christ as a replacement for our own thinking: as a result, we become like Him. 1Jn covers that latter topic on a micro level, and Eph covers it on a macro level. Hebrews appears to cover it on an applicational level (writer really starts the thought process from Chapter 1, building it to a series of crescendoes).
KEY ==> Every verse in the Bible is designed to become a LIVING part of the person. God is Truth. His Attribute of Truth is reflected in the Word, and since the Word is "alive" (Heb4:12), this Living Truth put into our souls creates Integrity, since the Truth (being an Attribute of God) likewise is colored (for lack of a better word) by His Other Attributes (like Righteousness, Justice, Love). Reflection verse in 1Cor (13?) and "from glory to glory", etc.
One needs to be saved for this Truth to be depositable, since God's Word is spiritual -- can't get spiritual information without a spiritual life, and can't have a spiritual life if not saved. (Morality truths are technically subsets of "the" Truth, but since they are man-man truths, unbelievers can live on them.) So, one needs to be routinely using 1Jn1:9 for the information to even get IN the soul, and one needs to be routinely studying Bible under his right pastor-teacher in order for anything to be transferred BY the Holy Spirit from the human spirit TO the soul. Then, volition has to "eat" believe what the HS transferred, so the information can become epignosis and circulate in the kardia (portion of the soul where one uses Bible Doctrine, 8 kardia categories, etc). Only then can the Bible's printed words become LIVING Words which govern (eventually) every aspect of your thinking. Spiritual growth results solely from this. No human effort or works or erudition can make it happen. That's how we are to be made into companionable "Bride" for Him: we have to BECOME something, not 'do' something. Some theologians call this process by the neutral term, "experiential sanctification". (Nee seems to call it variantly the second type of salvation, or "release of the Lord's Life": his vocabulary seems to come from the double-entendre word play of sozo and zoe in Scripture.)
Ok, then. The Bible's verses all are on topics, and those topics are paradigmal and dynamically-organized: hence Bible Doctrine (another word for organized Truth) results. Ergo yet another reason to compare Scripture with Scripture. So the person can come to think categorically. So, eventually, in any circumstance, on any topic, he can instantly discern the Lord's Opinion, the relevant facts underlying that Opinion, 'G-2', and a wide variety of other things relevant to volition's needing to respond to whatever the item in question may be. From the littlest of things, like whether to brush one's teeth and how often and when, to the so-called 'big' things, like whether one should move or marry.
"Application", it seems to me (so far), is sorta like "flying on instruments": one has metabolized ("eaten"/believed) pertinent doctrine but isn't totally familiar with the usage. (Not sure this wording is good enough.)
"Living on Doctrine" is a mature version of Application. The "instruments" are the reality, and whatever is sensed is totally unimportant by comparison. Breathing it, instinctual. At Spiritual Maturity and beyond, it's Seeing Him, really, and the 'living-on-doctrine' part is a sort of expression of Seeing Him. Seeing through His Eyes, so to speak, more than through any other 'eyes'. (It's real, but not a dream/vision or other nonsense.) However, one can come to live on a given doctrine much earlier -- but of course one needs to accumulate the whole realm of doctrine to get the full 'mosaic picture', so to speak. Instantaneity of fluency is a prime characteristic. The Lord's lightning responses in Matt4, the fluency of His usage in the Gospels, Paul's intense breathing of it in Romans/Ephesians/Colossians, the flow in Hebrews, Isaiah's writings -- all of these show how a person LIVING on doctrine thinks.
Therefore: whatever circumstances one is in, the FIRST question which should hit the soul is, "What does GOD mean me to learn/know?" The actors/props of the situation are simply that. Self doesn't matter, others don't matter, feelings/lackings/havings all don't matter. JUST that question. For the FIRST thing is to know what HE thinks, and then to exhale a response HE likes. For, the Father hears every thought, and the Son wants us to please the Father. All else docks under that FIRST purpose, and of course is (ideally) motivated by Reciprocity (having come to know the Love for Christ, e.g., Eph3:15ff). Cry all the way to the bank, baby.
Naturally, the process of growth is glitchy. It takes time to get the doctrine metabolized, to get the kinks (e.g., false interpretations which inevitably barnacle onto true ones) worked out, etc. 1Jn1:9 and sustained daily study under the pastor will do this. After all, even if the pastor is wrong, the Holy Spirit is not, and He'll correct any errors in due time. If the Holy Spirit wants the believer to quietly and without complaint go to a different pastor, He'll make that clear to the believer in question. So, in the final analysis, we don't have to get nervous/anal over whether we or the pastor have some error; instead, we should keep using 1Jn1:9 and turn what we are learning over. We can always talk (aka 'prayer') with God about what we are learning (speeds up learning). The Holy Spirit is the Sovereign Executive. He knows His Self-Chosen Job, and He'll cause anyone to see any error in due time, if the person is positive (cf Jn14, etc).
So, the Holy Spirit will constantly communicate. Any conversation, any activity, any circumstance will be used. After all, how can we obey without instruction? What if the purpose for the item in question IS instruction? Certainly it would be:1Cor2:15-16 insists on it! We don't instruct Him, but instead we have the Thinking of Our Beloved Christ FOR "reproof, instruction in Righteousness" -- as Paul also told Timothy. Certainly He has something He wants to say. So, then: if I'm stuck in traffic, how does He want to use that to my edification? If someone is insulting me, same question. It sounds sooo very selfish, yet nothing could be more humble. HE is really the one talking. Not the actor or prop. Not even 'me'. HE is out to make me compatible with my Groom-to-Be -- and NOTHING will be unexploited towards that goal. So, listen. If I'm listening, I'll not have much brain left to get upset about traffic or the person who insults me. I'll not have much brain left to be 'correcting' someone. Heh. Looks like it's finally a virtue to be selfish, in a way Ayn Rand didn't mention! The Lord was, really, the most Selfish Person -- He just went on and on with listening to the Holy Spirit. Look what happened with that! Ahhh, the WORD of the Cross! Heh. "Hear what the Spirit says to the churches"; "he who has an ear, let him hear"; "This is My Beloved Son: LISTEN to Him". Ahhh.
So, onto interChristian orientations, so to have a base for applications (which can then eventuate into the advanced "living" stage). These are in no particular order (yet).
The Rebuke thingy: Matt7:2 scares me to death. I don't see any circumstance when a person is supposed to be 'rebuked'. Maybe pastors have this job, but it seems pretty ineffectual, the way it's used: everyone just fights with each other, so all look foolish. There must be a time and place for it, but I don't see any call for me to ever 'rebuke' another person. The few times I felt I had to do it, I was sick for hours. How can anyone stand to do this? Moreover, all it seems to do is make whoever got the 'rebuke', more hardened. Reciprocity reflex: if I'm nice to someone, they will have a soul-urge to be nice back. The reverse is also true. Worse, both the rebuker and the rebukee get their eyes on each other, rather than on the Lord. It seems the last thing in the world which one would naturally want to do. Still, what's the DOCTRINE on this topic, irrespective of how I feel about it?
Doctrinal bases for my application(get verse cites later): the way the Lord talked to the Samaritan woman at the well, 2Tim2:26-3:7, esp the last two verses; Lev 19:18+Jas2:8 plus all the "Royal law" passages in 92SD (idea being that the Lord did not reciprocate, and why); Paul's+James' warnings to avoid controversies plus the who-is-Apollos verse in expanded context (don't create divisions, don't go-to-court -- don't publically criticise someone). Tharsete verse in Matt9, too -- that would be the mental attitude and goal of any words, too.
Ok, but what about where something said is incorrect? Seems the true right approach is generally to write-in-the-sand. If the person ASKS for what 'I' think, then I reply honestly but dispassionately, and on a principle-level: encyclopedically, so that we're all looking UP at the principle, and NOWHERE else (like at who might be 'bad'). Initiative here seems not to be God's Will: Peter's apologia verse is passive, being ready in season and out of season to ANSWER -- not initiate. Obviously a pastor would have some call for initiative; there would be like exceptions (root: where one has authority over someone else so MUST take initiative as part of the job). Of course, any URGE to initiate is probably carnal. God doesn't have 'urges', but the 6arxz sure does.
What about the help-thy-brother-in-his-error stuff in Jas5? And 1Jn5? Well, that should be balanced against the log-mote verse. In Jas5 and 1Jn5 both situations are talking about PRIVATE and INTIMATE relationships. So 'initiative' is actually desired on the part of both persons (e.g., close friends WANT to know what the other one thinks). Yet there, it's even dicier, for who wants to say something which he KNOWS will hurt someone he loves? Nay, he will go out of his way to couch whatever 'correction', in the most Tharsete-type terms! Like the Lord did with the paralytic in Matt9, or the adulteress. Or, the prodigal son conclusion: he was lost, but now is found: STRESS THE POSITIVE.
And that's the point: would I 'correct' my beloved mother or best friend with the same words I would 'correct' the stranger who's insulting me in #scripture? Or, who I think is spouting some heresy? Heck NO! So, then: why not 'borrow' that same love-attitude I'd have toward those I love -- toward those 'distant'? Is ANYONE 'distant' from the Lord? Did He not die for ALL MANKIND? Of course He did. So, then: because He is not distant from anyone, and I am not distant from Him, and we all died in Him (Cor verse, plus Rom6), then I am not distant from anyone ELSE, either -- nor they, from me. So, then: why should I talk to them with any less tenderness than I would toward those close? This issue goes way beyond 'do unto others'. It's 'do unto Christ', imo: since we are all in Him, and since He saved me and gives me this awesome grace of being able to learn His Word so to be "conformed to the image of His Son", "to produce a reflection" -- wow, that means 'do unto others as the Lord has done to you.' The Royal Law upgraded 'do unto others'. The latter is like an abacus, and the Royal Law is Pentium Omega.
Ok, but one shouldn't go too far to the left, either. Granted, most of us wouldn't be on-trial like Stephen or Paul, where whatever we say can and will be held against us by the hearers -- but many is the time when one KNOWS the hearer will negatively react, no matter how nicely-said the reply. The Lord had no hesitancy to turn over tables, or condemn the Pharisees, or speak in really STRONG terms. But He didn't always do that. Seems like the criteria He chose was two-fold: a) He Himself is the Ultimate Authority, so the "authority" rule REQUIRED Him to "brace", at times. Certainly if He didn't, people would have been misled (e.g., versus the Pharisees' spin on the OT). Next, b) He seems to have AIMED short,sharp,shocks (sorry, Mikado) kinda like one rips off a bandage -- so it was a kindness. But does should average person do this? Seems like this kind of usage is the ONLY kind Christians delight in -- like they have the same authority as the Lord. Hmmmm.
Ok, but it IS true that one should not refrain from at least ANSWERING a truth, despite how it is foreknown to hurt -- if there is NO way to get around it. I can't tell someone who asks me if there is a hell, "no". There IS. I can't tell someone who thinks that faith in Christ as the ONLY way is somehow discriminatory that there is some other way of salvation. Nor can I sugarcoat these facts. Nor do I want to. Ahhhh. Looks like we are back into the wait-until-asked mode. Simple answer, stated matter-of-factly. No apology needed. They ask, I answer. Ok.
Ok, but it is likewise true that if one is considered to have answers, and something comes up -- but one remains silent -- isn't that also misleading? The Lord did make oral forays before answering, and took the initiative (e.g., the Samaritan woman again, but there are other examples) -- and often He talked in parables.
Maybe a good approach is like an advisor role. If one has some kind of reputation for knowing Scripture, and is in some venue where a topic comes up, maybe then it's okay to just state an answer in a matter-of-fact manner -- again, encyclopedic. That's worked very well, but again -- if an 'urge' is behind it, it's probably best to stay quiet.
This topic isn't finished yet, but the parameters are getting clearer.
Reverse example: Nee uses colorful language, and since his stuff is translated from a very mystical language, Chinese, it's real easy to mistake what he says as being new-age. You have to read and read and read his stuff to realize he's not trying to make the 'spirit' some mystical experience. But oh, how the language sounds mystical! "Pneumatic Christ"? Sounds Gnostic or modalistic, and the A&C; articles don't do much to dispel this impression. Yet, when you read how Nee describes "Spirit of Christ" (which is, after all, a Biblical term), you realize "Pneumatic" is merely a descriptor to help the believer orient to Our Lord's Indwelling the believer. (I still prefer the simple term "Christ in you", but that's my preference: "pneumatic" in English means something running on compressed air. Heh: maybe that's why they picked the term, too?!)
What do I thus conclude? It's real important to LISTEN. Slow to speak, quick to hear. Bible stuff, even more than human language, tends to get defined in people's minds in VERY narrow terms. Mine, included. So what one says and what I say -- well, we might be speaking French and Spanish. Some words sound sufficiently alike that we THINK we're communicating, but oh -- we aren't! Kinda like getting the wrong tone in mandarin, you can be saying "curse", "horse", "hemp" -- or, "mother" (ma sound).
A lot of 'heresies' then, might not be. Technically, it shouldn't be an issue to me whether someone else believes some heresy. That's the Holy Spirit's business, not mine. However, to be SENSITIVE to the other person matters (brotherly love), so I may need to know what that person thinks so as not to become a stumbling block. At least, not any more, heh.
Related to this is the long history of Christian infighting. Seems like what generally happens is that definitions become too narrow. In a sense, this is a good thing, for we all know that since it's the Word of God, and He is Perfect, all definitions and doctrines are to be PRECISE. However, where we all seem to go wrong, is this: the Bible is always BIGGER in its PRECISE definitions than we seem to accord it.
Same could be said for "baptism", "faith", and a lot of other Biblical keywords. Seems that some people see ONE layer of the meaning, but others see another layer, and -- instead of concluding that maybe one layer is ATOP another, or BESIDE another, they assume the two layers are contradictory. Same problem as the authors in Holy Blood, Holy Grail had: because Christ said 12 different things on the Cross, all the accounts of what He said were contradictory, the authors concluded. I remember laughing aloud, when I read that: "What? He couldn't have said ALL 12 things?" Oh well.
It must be a problem of being in Adam. We just can't think our way out of a paper bag. So, the Protestants yell at the Catholics that salvation is permanent, but the Catholics trot out salvation verses which (if there were only one 'layer' to 'salvation') buttress their position that ya-gotta-do-something-besides-believe. Or, some see all the Holy Spirit verses, and stress those, whereas others see the rules, and stress those. The stress then becomes some kind of legalistic thing (you HAVE to 'get the Ghost' or you HAVE to do-do-do). Again, maybe the topics combine, rather than contradict. That seems to be the reason for all the crusading and upset within Christendom, even until now. "Rightly dividing the Word of Truth" turns into dividing-ourselves-over-'truth'. It's kinda backwards. Instead of recognizing that there are boundaries in a truth (i.e., like multiple stories in a building), we think the boundaries LIMIT the truth we're looking at. But God is not limited. He IS Absolute Precision (which to me is the best way to apprehend what Infinity really means).
What do I 'do' about this wrangling? Nothing. Just know it. People who think of their denominations like football teams they must be loyal to lest they dishonor the Lord -- i can't do anything about that, except be sensitive to it. They have a right, just as I do, to their understandings before the Lord.
Actually, all this competition ends up being a good thing: if we're gonna chop out meanings in the Word, if we're gonna draw boundaries eisegetically, then we need everyone talking/arguing/chatting etc. to be sure that the 'truth' isn't covered up, like it was before the Reformation. ALL churches tend toward corruption, because all are so hot on being the 'right' interpretation. Everyone shouts, "Me! Me! I'm the Faithful One!" LOL! If we really WERE so right, we'd not have to shout it. God the Holy Spirit is keener than we are on Witnessing to Truth. Seems like any church, even a small one, starts to turn sour when it organizes. We need to keep the bureaucracy to a minimum, then, and not worry about who will hear our 'right' message. God will provide the hearers. We don't need to beat the bushes, or look longingly at another man's territory.
Take this verse, for example: Rev2:2b. In Nee's Orthodoxy of the Church.. book, page 16, he gives his version of the translation: "And you have tried those who call themselves apostles and are not, and have found them to be false." He interprets "tried" as the keyword there, signifying that there WERE other apostles besides the 12, which is why they needed to be "tried". But wait! The same verse (in English, anyway) could also be read as signifying that there ARE no other apostles, but that the Ephesians didn't KNOW that, so "tried" them. I'm not trying to say what's the right interpretation. Instead, I'm just pointing out that we Christians make our interpretations, and then ally with them -- maybe, in error. So we NEED COMPETITION, to rethink whatever interpretations we have. "Unity" is the worst thing that can happen to us, for we still have our fleshy Energizer Bunny trying to glom onto God's Word to make self feel whole, again. Self, not God. Glorify self, not God. Bad motive! Need competition, for protection!
Frankly, all this preoccupation with building the Church is just so much ego. Who owns us? THE LORD. Who's the Authority? The Holy Spirit. So it's up to Him how He organizes the CHURCH. Not to us. If we go crusading ourselves, we are making Him a liar, and His Truth is not in us. ONE Lord, ONE Bible, ONE Baptism. All of these are God's. None of these are ours.
So, Ephesians 1,3,4 and some of Timothy is about the Body being knitted together -- BY GOD. How does He do this? Well, the apostles are gone (of course, some people who want to claim an apostolic mantle will dispute this, lol. But the Canon is completed.) "Joint of supply" verse is about a pastor-teacher teaching his congregation. As always, spiritual gifts are dispensed by the Holy Spirit, not by man's consensus. So, there are many pastors, many buildings where people meet, but the Body=The Wife/Bride = The Church. IN CHRIST. Granted, some local churches might think they want to all wear some like-moniker, as an identifier and disclosure to those thinking of getting teaching there. But isn't that the limit on what it should be? Do we have to add to the Word some kind of pride thing, "our church is good/best" whatever-is-the-advertisement? If God doesn't promote, it's not promotable.
Now, family members fight, but they are still knit together as a family. Fighting is helpful (well, it can be), and brothers are brothers, still: even if they can't/won't 'fellowship'. Seems to me that this whole idea of us somehow striving to make the Church 'ready' is completely misplaced. That's the Spirit's Self-Chosen job. That's why the Father blessed us with "every spiritual blessing". Knit together. Knitting goes against resistance (needle against needle, yarn against yarn). Result is that every 'stitch' has a place. Again, competition/resistance protects. So, even our evil natures, which vy with each other for who's-most-loyal-to-the-Word, become in His 'Hands' but needles and yarn -- we accomplish nothing, God accomplishes all. He works "to will and to do". We think we work, but..well, heck. The Bunny just can't stop trying to take over God's job now, can it? :)
Oh, but aren't we supposed to have Christian fellowship? Well, aside from the didaskolos verse (Eng: 'not forsaking the assembling themselves -- FOR HEARING TEACHING -- a purpose which those who tout the verse rarely note) -- I don't see much requirement.
People make much out of the customs and practices in the Bible. They seem to think that, since it's in the Bible, God somehow mandates it. In the OT, you see this problem often -- at least they had some excuse. Yes, God did say stuff about eating -- but it had a MEANING. Mainly, good health. Yet you see, even today, people who time and again castigate those who don't practice their food taboos. Or, who consider the observances somehow 'holy'. Yet the Lord had explained that it wasn't what went INTO a man which defiled him, but what came out: thoughts, etc. And Peter was sharply rebuked: "What God has called holy, you must not call common". And Paul wrote in Cor and in Romans how observances etc. were up to each individual before the Lord, NOT a 'holy' tradition (etc) which everyone, baby, better obey!
So also, people have made water baptism into some kind of required ritual, when it was always a voluntary thing, a sort of celebration of retroactive and current positional truth: go down into the water, identifying (BAPTIZO) with Christ at the Cross; come up out of the water, identifying (BAPTIZO) with Christ in His Resurrection. Romans 6. And it was a common custom for Hoplites (and later, Roman) soldiers to "baptise" their graduation swords in pig's blood, to identify with their new status as soldiers. So, are we. But, that's a custom. But oh! It's in the Bible, so we must REQUIRE it?!!! Really?
The only ritual command the Lord gave was the observance of the Eucharist: "keep on doing this in memory of Me, until I come". He didn't say how often. Further, He didn't require the physical practice of footwashing, but instead DID it to show the ATTITUDE we should have. He didn't require water Baptism, nor did He require any other do-thing. Well, except the study of the Word, which He not only exhorted, commanded -- but even PRAYED for to the Father as the means of His Own Glorification: cf John 14-17. Hmmm, seems like the Lord had different priorities. No Traditions, just THE WORD. JUST REMEMBERING HIM. Which one can 'commune' in -- and indeed is FIRST commanded to do with all one's soul and mind and heart -- all the time. Not just during the official Eucharist. After all, one meaning of eucharisteo is, "to give thanks". And Paul told us that's to be our attitude in "everything give thanks, for this is the Will of the Lord concerning you." Hmmm. Gratitude is an attitude.
Even so, the Lord's Commandment can be turned down. So where do we believers get off telling other believers what practices they should do? It's a sure sign of apostacy that we spend so much time with our eyes on people, with our eyes on physical practices and moralities and NO time on private fellowship with the Lord -- well, except to make one feel holy: the morning devotional is done, we are good boys and girls. Disgusting.
"All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful." Ok, then: so we study Scripture on these do-thingy's to see if they are good ideas or no. But, just as the Communion Table is corrupted, if it is not entered into with the fragrance of memories, so also any practice is no good per se. If the ONE ritual the Lord commanded is no good apart from the Word, then nothing else can be. So, then: if the WORD is in you, ANY practice can become "helpful". Obviously, you won't WANT to murder, etc. because sins derail you from fellowship. See? It's so simple. Why do we humans so complicate the Word with all our works ideas? Degenerating into "a form of godliness, but deny its power"? (Cf. 2Tim3:1-7.)
Certainly one is to help fellow believers, and it's of course DESIRABLE to be around someone who at least knows He Lives. After all, He's the Most Important Person Ever, the Joy of our Existence. It hurts not to be able to talk about Him, and to instead have to settle for football scores and politics, to have some kind of passing connection to another human.
And we are to "avoid such persons as these" -- the folks in 2Tim2:26-3:7. Since that description really embraces a lot of folks, maybe being isolated (so long as one is getting doctrine) isn't bad. After all, didaskolos is the purpose. FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD, not people. And for that, we need His Instruction. If it's less of a stumbling block to self or others to get that Instruction from a pastor on-tape, well and good. If it's less of a stumbling block to get that Instruction face-to-face in a church (say, if a person feels he lacks the self-discipline), well and good.
Conversely, if I'm growing spiritually, I don't have to go hiding somewhere because some screwed-up people are 'out there'. That's silly. If I'm so advanced, then why hide my light (presuming this is true, ok?) under a bushel? That's going too far to the left. So what's God's litmus for Christian fellowship?
So, what about a domestic 'mission', though 'missionary' would no longer be the right moniker? If a local church is supposed to set up satellites (and only God determines that, it's not a required thing), then wouldn't the FIRST priority be the home country? Salt? So, then: wouldn't a satellite have to have some start, a lone person? Who, assuming the Lord is in it, gets used to show others in that distant locale who they need as their own right pastor and right local church? Especially, in this age of advanced technology? A new hub gets developed. So there is still a body-proximity, not a disembodied through-TV or through-audio isolation. However, whoever would be at the beginning of that hub would be in isolation, temporarily. After all, Moses was isolated for 40 years before the Lord sent him back. We're not Moses, so how much MORE should we be isolated, too? God is FIRST. HE gathers the flock for whomever is their right pastor. After all, my right pastor is in Texas, but I heard about him from my freshman college roomate in California!
Looks like God's litmus is this: hi, believer, here's My Plan for your life. Part of that plan is where you belong on the spiritual 'team', for I'm building up a Body for My Son; a Bride for His Body. And the slot I planned for you, won't be the same slot as for another. It might be similar, it might be very different, even opposite, but it is YOUR slot. You'll get spanked if you don't get to it, grow in it, and stay in it -- until I move you somewhere else. Christian Soldier!
Bible uses so much military vocabulary to describe Church structure and function. And there are BRANCHES of military. There are BASES (seems like that's the analogy for the local church), there are field bases (in-country hq's), there are logistical connections for them all, etc. So maybe one local church has to deploy folks in the field: domestic, or foreign, depending on the country (Kingdom, heh) need. And no soldier is his own general. He is slotted, he is deployed, he goes or stays as ORDERED.
So, for some Christian Soldiers, that means be in close body-proximity to the base. Stay there, learn there, worship there, discipleship there (whatever 'discipleship' means -- people seem to use it as a people-to-people thing, but I only find the God-appointing-disciples role in Bible). For other Christian Soldiers, that means move out. God help us if we misidentify or go AWOL from our orders!
Gal5:1. We are to be set FREE, not fettered by being together with each other. Frankly, if we aren't created to be a peripheral expression for the Godhead to enjoy Each Other, life would be totally intolerable. If God's Happiness in any way was affected by anything in me, EVER (even in eternity!), I couldn't live with the burden. Who could? Even Christ didn't use His Human Power (and certainly not His Divine Power) to fulfill the Father's Will for His Life: instead, He submitted to that "still, small voice". Matt4 was about what God wanted, NO MATTER WHAT. All else was 'peripheral'. Just as it should be. Just as we ought to think about ourselves and others. Relationship to God? THE WORD. Relationship to life (people, things, self)? THE WORD. All else is and should be peripheral. Only then is life enjoyable, because only then is life not needed. Need obstructs enjoyment. The Word gradually erases need for anything and anyone but Him. And He is total Enjoyment incarnate, so needing Him doesn't obstruct anything. Rather, He frees. Just as Gal5:1 promised.
Freedom must be fought for. What's so way cool about Rev2:16-17 is the wealth of information it provides on this topic. Superficially, it seems to be merely a warning to Pergamum to get rid of their legalism (legalism is just as much fornication as the grosser kind, for it worships its rules more than God). But, look at the wording (corrected trans in caps, else NAS):
As a result of which, we get the "pebble", which at the time of writing was a way folks cast votes, gave citations, etc. which one could easily carry. Also, passes -- instead of having an id card, you had a special pebble. Inscribed. (The "which no one knows" phrase I'm not gonna comment on because I don't remember more about it except that it isn't 'secretive' forever.)
Which brings up another topic: why do we get so hot about our beliefs in the first place? I really wonder how much of that 'hot' attitude is satanic, and we don't know it. The Lord was RELAXED. Like a superbly-trained athlete. He was FLEXIBLE. He could be sharp, or gentle. Talk in parables, or directly. Rebuke, or compliment. And He's constantly using humor (wish the English would bring that out), even in the worst of times! Matt4:4 is funny! Heb 5:8-9 is funny! Even the Eloi, Eloi verse has humorous word-play, because He's obviously thinking of Ps22 -- and He's ON the Cross while screaming it! The Petra-petros verse is hilarious!
I can just hear some believers reacting: "ONLY study? That can't possibly be honoring to the Lord. We are supposed to present ourselves as 'living sacrifices'! We are supposed to do for the brethren! We must have a good testimony!"
Yeah, and what testimony is it, when all the sacrificing is what you do? Who died on the Cross, huh? Christ did. What work is then left, huh? NONE. Tetelestai, finished. Imagine how disgusted the Father must be (anthropathising Him, for sake of illustation): all these people with their dead bodies running around telling other dead bodies what God wants?! Let the dead bury their own dead. Our sins were paid for by what He THOUGHT on the Cross, and now we have that Treasure in WRITING, but ..what, it's not enough? Oh, we have to do something? Like Paul said, if there were anything left to do, then Christ died dorean, for nothing. But He was Resurrected. So now He's dorean, a Gift. The Indescribable Gift. Heh. A Gift is FREE. No sacrifice. THAT's the testimony.
And what is this 'living sacrifice', then? "Living Stones", as Peter put it. God never liked humanly-made stones for His Altar. He still doesn't. The Word is the Cornerstone, and the Word "builds up". All else "puffs up". Epignosis is knowledge God builds upon; gnosis (take that, gnostics) is knowledge man builds upon. Aha: the Sure Foundation, the Anchor behind the Veil (Heb6:18), is rejected by the builders of works! So, what got sacrificed by them? The Word was "crucified afresh". No, thank you. After all, gold, silver and precious stones cannot be manmade. They can be superficially aped, glommed onto, played with. But only God can make a Tree. And it's finished, thank you.
So what's with the hot competition? Why do we get so hot about our beliefs? I sure got hot just now...
It seems to be this: believing in Him is a traumatic thing to live with. We have this perfect human spirit, in which Righteousness and Eternal Life reside permanently. But we still have our sin-tainted soul, and the genetically-depraved body. They are all constantly at war (Rom7,8). So, in a war, one has to be 'more' loyal to keep up motive, maybe. So we are more strident here than elsewhere.
Also, children..don't know anything. Mommy and Daddy are the child's survival. Anything which seems to threaten Mommy and Daddy, the child can't take, must react! Of course, any newborn will consider as "mommy" whomever first handled him during those formative years. Uh-oh.
Satan can play 'mommy' as well as anyone. And loves it. Still, it's real easy to tell God isn't "in" something, because that human spirit can't be corrupted: it's a spiritual entity with uncorruptible Divine Righteousness and Eternal Life firmly and permanently in it. Only the soul can be attacked (well, the body can, but the attacks on the body are always designed to hit the soul, just as the attack on the Lord's Body in Matt4 was designed to make His Soul slip). In short, even if we are in a carnal state, the Holy Spirit can send disciplinary reminders 'down the pipe', so to speak. So our souls can be disquieted. Since the Holy Spirit will not coerce volition, we'll get only so much of a 'signal' from the Divine Broadcasting System as our volition can handle. Like, "Do you do well to be angry?" For, when we're carnal, like Jonah we're angry, however sweet we tell ourselves we are. Do we hear the "still, small Voice"? He who has an ear...
Ok, but it's STILL not rational, to get so hot about what we believe, versus others, once we are at least physical adults. We either believe rightly or wrongly. If rightly, what does it matter if someone else agrees? If wrongly, wouldn't it be better to fix it? I'd fix my toenail if something were wrong with it, and wouldn't be ashamed that was needed. So why not have the same attitude with respect to a belief about God? It's no shame for me to be wrong.
Well, some people are hyper-insecure. They didn't grow up even humanly speaking. Ergo the need to constantly be right, tell others they are wrong, claiming that's somehow 'brotherly love'. And when asked for details, a remarkable thing happens: they can never articulate their rightness or another's wrongness well. Instead, they parrot, or quickly degenerate into personal attacks. Others..hide. We all do something like this on some subject. Ahhh. We didn't grow up on that thing. But we CAN...
And so it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut loves to write. The old sin nature, our nature in Adam -- it CAN'T be rational. It's still trying to recapture Eden. Dissociation. And, since the original sin was against God -- then the Lady-MacBeth urge will dissociatively hit the strongest whenever "God" is even remotely in view! Ok, then. No solution here. Dead body, Energizer Bunny running down...
But wait! We do have genuine loves. I mean, why do most of us believe in Christ in the first place? Isn't it because we are attracted to God? It's not natural to choose Him. Granted, the fear of hellfire is a bottom motive, but the bigger motive is that we want to be with Him. We have no clue who He really is, or what being with Him is really like when we first believe in Him (that takes a spiritual life, which as unbelievers we don't yet have), but..we take that step. We metanoeo and pisteuw. We change our minds about the Gospel (to positive), and believe.
That's a kind of love -- and all loves can be 'kidnapped' (deflected).
Ok, so now let's argue FOR taboos, works, and rituals, because it isn't solely an ego thing. It is also a love thing. And we aren't supposed to just sit on our study, lol!
In Cor, Paul talked about the brother who, if he saw Paul eating at a restaurant which was known to get its meat from idol sacrifices (slaughter was sold after the offering to the idol, to the restaurant), would feel Paul was sinning. Why? Because that brother still considered that if one ate what was offered to an idol, that eating was somehow blasphemous against God. To that brother, that was his conclusion. So, Paul concluded, Paul would not want to eat at such a restaurant, for the sake of his brother's conscience. James also mentioned something like this, to the effect that if someone does something he knows is wrong, "for him it is sin".
Now, what makes a person conclude that if he doesn't get baptised, if he doesn't avoid drinking and dancing, if he doesn't avoid meat (or whatever), he's sinning? Well, in the first place, that person clearly assigns a meaning to the activity which is deeper than, say, I do. For me it is not sin, because to me the meaning is nothing (like that verse where Paul says that eating any meat, offered to idols or no, means nothing). But it's not a sin to me, BECAUSE it means nothing. I have no particular attachment to it, or against it. I'm neutral.
Kinda like a OB/GYN who is male, examining a woman, the activity is clinically viewed, rather than pruriently viewed, an individual might value an intrinsically-neutral activity as such. Dancing itself isn't necessarily bad. Neither is drinking wine. However, I can assign a value to that activity and MAKE it bad. If I do, it becomes 'sin' to me -- REALLY DOES -- because I've assigned such a value to it. The rich young ruler assigned a beyond-intrinsic value to his wealth, so the Lord told him to give it all up. He couldn't. If something 'causes' your eye to sin, cut out your eye, is the idea.
Hence, since whatever we think or do, we think or do as 'unto the Lord' -- a thing can really BECOME a taboo for us, which is not a taboo for another. In which case, for the individual who does view it as a taboo -- it IS a taboo for him. Again, "all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful." It's not gonna be helpful for that person, unless and until he comes to value the activity neutrally.
Islam has a real problem with women's clothing. Yet, within that taboo, there is a wide variety of what's considered 'proper'. Some adopt a full burkha; some, just a headscarf. Some, just a modest but Western dress. THEY consider the exposure of the female form a major taboo.
Many Christians are similarly affected. Some think it sinful if a woman wears makeup; doesn't wear a hat in church; wears nail polish or colorful clothing; enters into 'mixed bathing', or smokes. Ok: to those people these items have a non-neutral value. For them, it truly becomes a sin to do them.
Others are surrounded by scantily-clad women and barely notice it. It's custom, it's common -- ho hum. So for them, it's not sin. Again, it's the ATTITUDE toward the thing, not so much the thing itself, which makes it sin.
No problem. The person then adopts whatever taboos he feels he needs to adopt. After all, I have a few of my own. Keyword here though is PERSONAL: for me they are needed.
It's likewise fine if people who have similar personal taboos get together and live a church lifestyle based on them. We should have a good conscience before the Lord. So the various denominations, at root, with their senses of what is right and wrong -- well, that's their collective conscience. Like Paul said, observances are for the individuals to determine, before the Lord.
In short, our loves are touched, so to speak. And, because we feel that we should live some kind of way before the Lord owing to love (however immature we may be at the time), we need to find an expression of that love, and conscience (at that time) will dictate that. SO, it's not simply a question of Mr. Energizer Bunny trying to make ego king. It's also a love question. Nascent love, maybe: but love, nonetheless.
Therefore: it is inevitable that if I think a thing is right, and 'you' disagree, we will both feel uncomfortable about it. After all, either I really am right, or I am not. Same for you. So this discomfort will naturally manifest in one of us trying to get the other one to switch sides, so to speak. THAT is where evil begins, and THAT is the core of the problem with the infighting/denominations. In short, it's okay that we all differ, but it's NOT okay that we try to get the other guy to go our way. Yet, the urge to do it is strong: not just because of the Energizer flesh, but because we have some idea of how we must express our growing Love for Him, and our taboos/practices are an integral part of that.
Ok, then: so, motivated partially by fleshy Energizer sin-in-Adam, and by our interpretation of Scripture, our 'love' also influences us in this matter of conscience. But the following categories are (we all know), generically true:
There's a sort of hybrid category: how we read Scripture. If we read Scripture incorrectly, it is technically sin, because the incorrect reading is due to some past sin condition which now blocks the will's readiness to hear the correct answer, and that sin condition is still what the will, wills. Any rejection of truth must be due to sin. Even if ignorance is present, the person COULD have chosen to know earlier, and did not. So, he sinned by choosing to stay ignorant.
On the other hand, whatever our incorrect reading of Scripture is, if we 'buy' that interpretation, then to us "it is sin" if we disobey it. So, we're trapped! We sin by rejecting truth, and thus come up with an incorrect interpretation; we sin if we reject the incorrect interpretation, too! What???
Ahhh. We'd FIRST have to learn that interpretation WAS incorrect, in order for it to be RIGHT to reject the interpretation. Until we KNOW it is incorrect, to reject a wrong interpretation is "sin", to us. Once we know, however, then the cause of the rejection is no longer a rebellion against the former 'truth' we believed, but rather a calm recognition that the thing we used to believe, is not the truth. See? ATTITUDE, MOTIVE.
To the people with this wrong interpretation, they are bound by the 10% they believe in, because they accepted the authority of that incorrect rule. It's totally anti-biblical (Bible has only and always said any giving was SOLELY voluntary), but these people have bound themselves to that interpretation.
So, if George bought that interpretation, and he stints on the 10%, he's sinned. If he has heard that the "tithing" was really income tax and still doesn't believe it, he's sinned. If he uses the income tax excuse but he only is using it as an excuse, he's sinned, because he's STILL not rejected the 10% for the right reason.
Wow! No matter what we do or think, we're bound to be wrong! No way we can get the interpretation right the first time, and no way we won't excuse ourselves from whatever we DO believe! Who will deliver us from this body of death! Thanks be to God the Father, through Our Lord Jesus Christ!
Ok, so this is yet another reason to be EXTREMELY wary of the 'rebuke' thingy. It's not humanly possible for me to have a wholly-correct interpretation. The Holy Spirit does, though. Even so, when my mouth opens, some of what is the from-Him correct interpretation will become inevitably mixed with, at least, 'fuzzy' words: fuzzy to the hearer, if not to me. And, vice versa, for what any speaker tells me. So how in the blazes can any 'rebuke' not become sin, unless the person speaking is DIVNELY-appointed and thus required to do so? By "DIVINELY-appointed" I mean an authority over a given person/group of persons which God has ordained: like, parents over their own children; pastors over their own flocks; bosses over their own employees, etc. Even here, it's going to be impossible for a perfect transmission: some of what is said might be correct, but something in the wording or in the hearing will corrupt it. The Holy Spirit then is more vital than ever, as the Arbiter! 1Jn1:9 is a lifeline. For, who can avoid sin-by-improper-understanding? No one.
A natural corollary worry is illustrated thus: "Well, I've got these websites. Maybe they shouldn't even be here!" Who wants to mislead others? Then again, since it is only a website, the reader still has his privacy; nor do I promote the site; plus, it sits like a needle in a haystack -- wouldn't the Holy Spirit warn a person who shouldn't read a thing in it, or filter it so that whatever He wants communicated, still is? That protection doesn't absolve me of trying to write accurately, first because the Father is hearing me, and second because someone else might also. Yet I can't just cringe for fear of speaking, either. In fact, by writing the site, because it's 'public', I take more care in reassessing what I've learned and have come to believe/know as a consequence. Grace will out. For the reader, and for me. We can't but make mistakes. The Law proved this, and the New Law in Christ proves it even more. Thanks be to God the Father who through Our Lord Jesus Christ has delivered us from this body of death!
Another natural corollary is to beware of assuming one knows enough about another teacher's teaching to be able to competently comment on it. It's one thing to generically talk about something one is fairly certain is a doctrinal error. It's quite another to say that a particular teacher is right or wrong on that topic. It's even more dicey to assume that whatever seems to be wrong with that pastor's teaching, the person under him views it the same way as 'I' do! So, if that person ended up still having the 'right' interpretation despite being under someone 'I' see teaching it wrongly, what have I done? Matt7:2!
Roman Catholicism bugs a lot of people, and after exposing myself to its doctrines enough to establish due diligence before the Lord, I'm certain it's not right, either. HOWEVER -- many Catholics I know don't hold views which the average Protestant would find heretical (e.g., many only consider Mary to be the archetype of a faithful believer, and don't even buy the perpetual virgin and other stuff -- they make fun of RCC people who do). So, isn't the real issue what the person LEARNS from his teacher, rather than the teacher? Would the Holy Spirit be wrong to allow Catholics to stay Catholics, if they still manage, thank you, to get the 'right' teachings anyway (since the Holy Spirit, not any man, is the ONLY one who can put the truth in a believer)?!
Many have no hesitance in ridiculing me or my pastor. I had no idea my understanding of Scripture was such a problem for them, until I got on IRC. It has been a very surprising, but helpful, experience. So also, during the 30 or so years I've been under my own pastor I've been amazed at the number of people who know absolutely nothing about what he teaches, but oh boy, they sure think they do! Query them on any data they think they know, and it's truly bizarre, the answers one receives. Likewise, I should expect that 'my' idea of another pastor's teaching will be way off.
Now, we submit because we are attracted. The 'right' person it might not be, but it might have some of the essential characteristics of the right person, and since we were designed for someone similar, well..we slipped. Attraction, be it to a similar or truly-right person, will naturally produce a desire to be loyal. More deeply, there is some kind of compatibility of communication. Like castle walls in a marriage (illustrated by the sanctity of sex only-for-marriage), this compatibility means that some other pastor will be incompatible -- even if he interprets the Bible (largely, since no two are identical) the same way. So, a person under pastor "A" will have a tendency to NOT like pastor "B", simply because pastor "A" is (so he thinks, or truly) right for the person. The younger one is spiritually, the more vehemently he will feel the urge to defend pastor "A", and the more any teaching from any other source will be considered 'heretical'.
Therefore, maybe the immature or hypersensitive believer who needs to support pastor "A", might correctly see some blooper in pastor "B". Additionally, maybe there are others who are not territorial, and likewise accurately recognize the same blooper in pastor "B". So, if these folks talk about that, those under pastor "B" will feel a need to defend him. And that's how the devastating, satanically-inspired Christian infighting gets going. Log-mote violation, eventually spiralling out of control.
How sad. We should be collaborating to learn from each other so we can better see our own motes; eager to hear another's 'slant' so to account for our own spiritual mistakes -- versus being so needy on excising theirs. This latter has to be a form of adultery, for its lusty urge is completely patent.
My college professors (and I) had wanted me to get into the foreign service. That means, learning diplomatic intercourse. (Cf any book by Sir Harold Nicolson). God had other ideas. Still, I didn't know God's ideas until graduation, so the meanwhile I majored in International Relations, and spent some time in Asia. During those years, I learned that the art of diplomacy depends on first being quite sure you are understanding your host country's position in its own mindset. This, because mindset is a type of language. "Mindset" means the hierarchy of values concerning God, self, others, one's country, world. German term is Weltanschaung.
A more comprehensive term is "faith". "Faith" in the original languages of the Bible is generally used in a passive sense: body-of-beliefs. (This is especially true when it is a noun; but if a verb, "Faith" often means the function of believing.) "Faith" means everything believed, and all beliefs are hierarchical, because all values have to become organized in case there are competing needs. For example, Marines will not leave a wounded comrade on a battlefield. Think over the implications: one's own life is less important than saving Private Ryan. Thus all items in a faith are in some kind of authoritative hierarchy.
Everyone has a faith, though generally they will not recognize it. One can't even learn without faith. I have to BELIEVE 1+1=2 in order to LEARN it. Once believing, I also have to VALUE that item in some kind of hierarchy, a 'slot' where that belief belongs. Hence, when you add up all the items, you have a whole 'doctrine' of beliefs in order to view all your things and relationships in life. Everyone has a weltanschaung, a faith. Can't be human, without it. Therefore, it's ESSENTIAL to be able to understand the 'language' of a person's faith in order to have any kind of constructive dialog, to get along!
Thus is the essential idea in diplomacy: look at the national mindset/weltenschaung/faith, in order to find the language of diplomatic discourse with that nation. And, we are "ambassadors for Christ" (1 Tim 2, I believe).
The same analogy holds for pastor/sect differences. One must first determine the orientation. Let's take Watchman Nee's books as an example (I'm reading them these last few days because they are sooo very Chinese, I've been a Sinophile all my life, and many of the doctrines in them are delightfully expressed). Nee's writings demonstrate that he had a very secure classical Christian training. His ministry was phenomenal in China; where the Waigworen (Westerners, but the term is a little disparaging) failed, he succeeded. Chinese need a thing to be Sinofied before they can accept it; 'foreign' is a bad word to them, much like 'strange' is a bad word in the Bible. Nee managed to express the Bible in terms which a Chinese could 'own'. If a reader doesn't understand this, he will misunderstand Nee's writings.
China was largely illiterate, but literacy was important. Chineseness (then and now) is largely pragmatic, as well as emotional: put-it-to-use-NOW is very important. Again, synchronizing both the feel and the fact is a paramount virtue in Chinese minds for millenia. Again, Nee succeeded here. The dark continent which for hundreds of years had, like Japan, seen frustration from its contact with the West; the huge civilization which remained dark and insular yet highly-intellectual, finally got a true freedom, and from one of its own. (I can't tell you how happy it makes me to know so many Chinese are saved!)
In the West, there is a parallel. Christianity quickly devolved into a maze of practices, customs, traditions. Over time, these have become the topic of much legalistic wrangling and many have lost their lives over how these practices should be done. (Praxis, in fact, is a very important part of Eastern Orthodox religion, and it's over that and some doctrinal issues that the East eventually split from Rome.) In short, new believers want something to DO. And many of the teachers, both then and now, came up with frameworks to give the children something to DO. The idea was to learn by doing; over time, what ended up happening is that the doing eclipsed the learning, so Bible Doctrine mutated into men's doctrines: it was routinized into a soundbyte catechism few actually understood, or it was rudimentarily taught. People stayed spiritual children, at best. The Reformation didn't do much to reverse this problem, though it helped for awhile.
Today, although it is hard to detect beneath the noise, the world is at an all-time-high of interest in what constitutes the post-salvation life, and knowing God personally is the major motive. So, because knowing Him is now so much more important, the idea of studying Him is much more popular than it ever was. God meets that rise in interest with a rise in pastoral competence: during the last 50 years, there has been a huge surge in our accuracy to translate what the Bible MSS actually say. (Of course, Satan beefed up the counterfeit 'experts' and hecklers, too!)
Yet both in East and West, pastors/sects still divide over essentially two approaches to spiritual growth: a) praxis-first, or b) study-first. Everyone fits somewhere between a) and b). Doctrinal divisions would be like a vertical divisor. So you'd have a square grid, with every church falling somewhere on the horizontal axis (praxis left corner, study, right corner), and somewhere on vertical axis (doctrinal divisions).
Getting the balance right is the key. Imbalances are the bane of Christianity: some stress "getting the Ghost" or other emotional activity, calling it spiritual -- the fact that it makes God look stupid is written off as beyond-reason, which is allegedly holy. Others stress ritual and corporate activity: and the rosy glow of all that is deemed holy because it is organized and solemn. Still others stress works, which to them are the sine qua non of the spiritual life. And yet still others stress study so much, the spiritual life becomes some dry life of flashcard-like knowings. Strong's meanings (ugh). Church Fathers wrote this. "Heresy" is that. Facts facts facts and no live understanding at all. All the while, people people people define the spiritual life, rather than God God God!
KEY==>Notice how each "stress" degenerates into a kind of roteness. Oversimplification due to stress transfers 'magic' onto the thing stressed, so it becomes de rigeur to 'do' it. From there, everyone gets judged by this LONE 'do'. And God? Oh, He was in a movie once. Wasn't it the "Ten Commandments"?
These four stresses account more for the divisions among Christian churches than anything else. These four stresses stress out Christians more than anything else. Sure, some pastors also teach as 'doctrine' some things which are WAY out of kilter with Scripture. But, those teaching those things might be caused LATER to reverse that error by the Holy Spirit. He might be working on some other thing with the errant sect/pastor at the moment. I mean, God doesn't give us perfect parents. We were not perfect children, either. God doesn't require a pastor to be perfect, either -- to use him.
Still, this is good: parishoners aren't perfect, pastors aren't perfect, Church history isn't perfect; and, everyone being so VERY imperfect -- competes. Which creates a tendency toward balance (aka "equilibrium" in macroeconomic theory). Heh. Looks like Romans 14-15, Eph4, 1&2Tim, who-is-Apollos etc. verses take on even greater significance when viewed from the macro angle of aggregate Church 'progress' in figuring out the Word, huh? Seems like a body of accumulative gaffes and genius is being knitted together...?
Seems like the Judgement Seat of Christ is about how far one progressed spiritually with whatever version of faith he had. So, then in the wider sense, the many divided sects in Christianity operate in aggregate like a school system, from kindergarten to Phd-level. There are different schools. There are different grades. When a student graduates from a particular grade in a particular school, maybe God moves him to a different school (church). Conversely, if the student flunks a particular grade, he's moved to somewhere else to catch him up. And so on. Obviously, if a student will never want to progress to Phd level (for in God's plan, it's the desire to learn God, not human IQ, which makes for advancement), he'll end up at death in some particular grade of some particular school. The schools, of course, all rank. Then, the Bema reveals who-did-what. LOL we will ALL regret not using our spiritual assets, better! And won't care at ALL to 'lord it over' someone who didn't get 'as good' a reward as 'I'! Wow, what a time that will be...
Wait! I got it wrong! It's MILITARY school, and at the same time, being in God's Armed Forces, when one graduates! Look: even when one is a student at a military academy, there is plenty of 'war' going on. That's how a plebe grows to become a graduate. He 'battles' with all the body resistance to physical training (logistical hassles in learning the Word), he 'battles' with his classmates, and also collaborates with them. So, from day one he's a little-bit functional as a soldier. This little bit grows and widens and deepens..Eph3:15-19 being the goal. After graduation, he's moved out, or given a non-moving post. Temporarily, permanently, whatever. God the Holy Spirit is the Supreme Commander. The pastor is the local HQ commander, or maybe a commander of "x" number of HQs/bases, etc. There is no merely human Joint Chiefs of Staff or Commander-in-Chief (i.e., no pope or council of churches dictating policy).
Yeah, this is the right idea. So each church plays some role as well, corporately, within the developing Bride. One church might be in the 'army' branch. Another, 'air corps'. Another, quartermaster corps. Of course, each corps would within itself have to be a 'whole' also, but with respect to its own internal function. Kinda like how the Army needs to have its own air wing, not the Air Force's planes. Modularity is a linchpin in all military structure, function, deployment.
The Bema then is EXACTLY that: Our Commander-in-Chief gives us our o.e.r.'s for our time down here. Doesn't matter if a guy was a private peeling potatoes all his life. Did he peel as unto the Lord? Then he was faithful in little, and shall be appointed over much. Was a field officer faithful in his duties? After all, who MADE him able to rise in ranks to be a field officer? The Holy Spirit! So, then: was he faithful? Etc. The Order of the Morning Star is a battlefield award. So also for all the crowns, pebbles, whites, etc.
Ok, I get it now. This military analogy clinched it. No soldier has a right to go outside channels. It goes outside channels, the heretic thingy, the rebuke thingy, the you-should-see-Bible-my-way thingy. No matter what angle I pick to analyse this whole interpersonal/ intersect Christian interrelating topic, I keep coming back to the same answer: LEAVE EVERYONE ALONE UNLESS ORDERED OTHERWISE! Whew. Only God is omniscient and Only God has the right to Judge. He truly has delivered us from these bodies-of-death!
One quick postscript: God's assignment of a person to church A versus church B has a lot to do with the essential soul structure of the person. For example, my soul just can't 'get it' until I know a whole lot of technical information. I literally have to know how to build a watch in order to competently know what time it is. Once I know that, I'm real good at telling time (though that HAS to be the Holy Spirit making me good even secularly, for I'm famous for being unable to competently put on a stamp!) Until I know that, I can easily believe someone telling me what time it is, but I don't ever understand how that person could tell time. In terms of learning Him, I just can't 'get' a teaching until exposed to the "ICE" (e.g.,exegesis) of the supporting verses. Until that point, I can easily see the sense in the teaching, use it, live on it..but only shallowly. I don't know why I'm like this: maybe it's a spiritual gift, which means apart from that gift, I can't function at all. Once I get it that way, the keyword or exegetical point the HS used to lock in the understanding remains as a sort of moniker, a zip file which instantly opens whenever that keyword or exegetical point comes to mind. Same, for verses, etc. So I'll sound rather strange, to others whose souls don't work in a similar fashion!
So, then: to some, a person like me is intimidating, because they don't know that academics need that mode: it's not a greater intelligence, just a different type. So, then: a person who can just run with a short instruction on how to read a watch..isn't he superior in that way? So, then: wouldn't his soul structure warrant a church which teaches things more simply? I NEED all that doctrinal data to function. He doesn't, maybe. Again, looks like these are part of the category of spiritual gifts -- some need the instant-types, some need the detailled-types. We all have slots on His Military Team. Woe to us if we don't identify and function in our God-designed slot!
Corollary: seems to me ALL relationships in life could be modelled on the interChristian paradigm, too. Who is my neighbor? Who is my brother? Didn't Christ die for everyone? Granted, one shouldn't be unequally yoked -- but that's what 2Tim2:16-3:7 and Phili 3:15-18 also say -- and those passages pertain to BELIEVERS! So, live and let live; don't make a stink out of another's wrong, but keep quietly apart where apartness would be commanded. Don't interpret that or ANY Biblical command to buttress/excuse self (like the Corban gimmick). Neither to the right, nor to the left.
What a surprising relief! All this nonsense in Christendom's endless football playoffs gets left in a discarded TV Guide. All I do is learn how to hear and respond, privately in my spiritual life before the Father as the Son desires, in the power/teaching of the Holy Spirit, under my right pastor. Very very very intense thought life -- for who can instantly recall the appropriate doctrine, capture every thought, without lots of unrelenting practice under the Holy Spirit -- but freedom from inter-believer wrangling. So, 'a vacation! Heh. Yeah, the Hebrews 4 rest! And, when and if some kind of 'fellowship' is needed, He'll make clear what and when, so that the poisonous kind is avoided. Whew. It's NICE to be a doula...
So what Divine Policy (for me) applies to intercommunication? Say, in the chatroom? Well, using the bullets above, I get:
So what Divine Policy (for me) applies to how often I should intercommunicate? Say, in a chatroom? Well, the "ABC" litmus always governs. "A", Alpha: what should the Father 'hear' me think-and-do? "B", "Body" (living in this body) -- what are the logistical and organizational needs of the day? "C", "Charges" -- what do others need of me, this day? Anything which violates A will violate B and C. Anything which violates C will violate A and B. So, then: I can approach the answer to the question of how often by entrance into any of A or B or C. From there, to refine the answer, ferreting out any misdiagnoses of what applies. So, for example, if I don't yet know the "A" answer, but know something in "B" and "C", use those. Kinda like a detective figures out who-done-it. This, of course, is Occup, coupled with GODO (Grace & Doctrinal Orientations), and all the PSDs in between (with Rebound,F-R, PL-Father, IL, +H being tied into Occup, as the "reciprocity" motive).
The Father's Plan is ABSOLUTE (demonstrated so wonderfully in Romans 8:28's Attic drama use of Simple Accusative of ton Theon and the intransitive-converted-to-transitive-by-Hero of sunergei): My Hero, My Lord unites all disparities and disconnections, converting all into intrinsic/absolute/ultimate good! [Besides getting "unites" from both the high drama and the context before and after the verse, I also get "unites" from the fact that the accusative is sometimes used in Classical greek in place of the nominative, in order to shout that noun; plus the first sentence in Wallace, p.177, and the last sentence in Wallace, p.205. Idea, respectively, of the accusative being queen of classical greek cases and the nominative being the king. Heh. Paul is really on a roll, here. No wonder he concludes as he does in verses 31 and 37-39! Uniting weakness and suffering, Our Hero conquers all! How I love this passage!]
Ok. Father's Protocol takes into account the fact that people have their own protocols. Free will. Living in Harmony (e.g., 1Tim2). So, then: He does want me to be in the chatroom at times, because of the way the entire circumstance came about, and its results. Ok. Which times, though? Well, let's look at the "no" answers: it cannot be at a time when I've something else which "B" or "C" demands be done, lest there be a compromise to "B" and "C". It cannot be for the wrong motive, either (e.g., I'm frustrated with something going in in "B" or "C" or "A" (lol!); or, I miss the people there and want to just sit with them, etc.) It has to be HIS ORDER, and if that's not my first motive, I'll do only evil to self or others by disobeying.
Given how "B" and "C" are for me now, the positive answer is this: I can only seldom go there. Also, it means I really screwed up royally by going there so much, before. Granted, the HS used ALL of what happened there to give me a great deal of understanding, to advance my spiritual life -- but that wasn't His First Choice. I get that, now. Ok, so I'll be disciplined for those past failures, to backstop the weakness. Moving forward, it looks like it will be a rare thing to justify going there again. Hmmm -- should I try to orchestrate my "B" and "C" to make time to go there? I don't yet know. Gotta think about it more.
[Rewrite, discard, or move the following topic. It needs a lot of work.] Let's return to this issue of intersect Christian differences, but focus this time on current trends. The overwhelming evidence is this: Satan is busy! There is a direct correlation, throughout history, between the fragmentation/polarization in Christianity and the uncovering of some major MSS (or text (or teacher) which greatly improves the interpretation of the MSS). It's truly astonishing. (I saw this trend most recently by accident, while rereading Sir John Glubb's Short History of the Arab Peoples -- Glubb is decidedly pro-Arab, so he wasn't trying to draw that correlation. In fact, though he talks about what he saw as the correlation of three-to-four generation dynasties -- without, it seems, remembering the Biblical four-generation-curse doctrine -- he doesn't recognize that the rise of Islam effected a pogrom on Christianity. But I digress...)
Example: massive MSS discoveries were made in the mid-1800's (e.g., Tischendorf) -- and a good part of the Christian world was embroiled in various types war (civil and otherwise). Of course, the papyri discoveries 'just happened' to coincide with the darkening-toward-war which characterized the so-called "West" at the end of the 19th century, and at the beginning of the 20th. That period, of course, was when the Industrial Revolution so coalesced that the so-called imperialistic countries had spread out round-the-globe. Bringing, of course, Christianity with them. Classic case of overstretched logistics. So what we see is a suddenly-more-available accuracy in Scripture, barnacled with war. Interesting.
What I see happening since 1900 or so is a widespread rebellion against formalism, and this rebellion has seeped into church interpretations as well. Granted, the Reformation didn't go very far, though its repurcussions have rumbled on ever since. More broadly, with the coalescence of the industrial age came a demotic tendency to treat any formalistic views as snotty, uppity, arrogant. So also, in the views of how to read the Bible. Thus, by about 1950 and following, although much new and very important knowledge of what the Bible actually means has come to light, so also much rebellion against prior precepts of it has fumed. Baby thrown out with the bathwater, this.
Innovation has become an idol, even. So, naturally, those who still hold to older renditions of how the Bible should be interpreted are necessarily more strident in their defenses. So also, those innovating. The result has become an increasingly polemical debate, even down to whether one should call the Greek article "definite", anymore! Puleese.
A kinder, gentler interpretation is also the more accurate: don't box Scripture into some mindset. Just see what IT says, first. If it says what it says in a manner which more accords with an 'old' rendition, so what? If what it says more properly reflects some innovative concept, so what? Don't we only need to care what IT says? All our formulations and reformulations (such as whether Greek case system must be five or eight) -- these are but tools. They are not as important as Scripture. So, if Scripture deliberately uses what would be considered "bad" Hebrew or Greek, well..what point is God making in doing that? Let's see -- rather than argue.
Overall, the interpretation which is least self-contradictory would be the one most like Scripture's, for the proper interpretation of a verse/passage/doctrine would be the one which is wholly consistent -- for, God is Consistent. Since no one has all of the interpretation right, collaboration is essential. Not compromise, nor egregious competition.
What bugs me about most teachers and teachings is that they are oversimplistic and overdogmatic -- or, the reverse (under- ). They stand pat on their definitions and react with hostility if someone proposes some other meaning. So, what I like the most about my own pastor is that he keeps on rechecking and refining whatever he's taught us before. As a result, I've heard folks lambast him for being too 'old-fashioned' (i.e., still Dispensational) -- or, conversely, for being too innovative. LOL he can't please anyone. But, when I compare what he's taught over the 30 years to anyone else, his teachings fit together better and explain what most others call "inscrutable" or "problemmatic" passages. Since he's not shy about crediting someone else for something he came up with due to them, I can also know the path-of-discovery he traversed. And thus, better use the doctrine myself before the Lord. After all, He won't excuse my own lack of due diligence, either.
What bugs me about Christianity today is that it is way too anthropocentric, and stuck in God101-type arguments/doctrines. The idea of just knowing God for Himself is relegated to "inscrutable", or -- worse -- emotionality. Moreover, its formulation of the post-salvation life is incredibly fuzzy and people-oriented. The spiritual life is relegated to something one DOES, rather than someONE one LEARNS. (Seems like folks of 100 years prior had a more balanced view, though fuzziness was a problem, even then.) Worse, the need to systematize Biblical grammar has taken on too much quantative emphasis, and folks are trying desperately to 'simplify' it, make a McDonald's hamburger set of rules for its interpretation. At the cost of a lot of eisegesis. No wonder folks opt for Strong's meanings, ritual/emotionality, or works!
It should be immediately apparent to even a four-year old that Christ saved us, not our works. Even a five-year-old can grasp that if the First Commandment is to love the LORD -- it's the LORD, not people, Who is first. Even a six-year-old can grasp that there's a need to grow up on the inside -- which is way more important than what one does. I am to live with Him forever, not my works. He saved everyone individually; I didn't save them! So what do they need of me? If I couldn't save them, what can I do for them, or they, for me? And what are we all here for, anyway? Isn't it "to grow in the grace and knowledge of Our Lord and Savior.." (2Pet3:18)? And THAT leads to glory. Even a seven-year-old can read that verse and see it's GROWING IN KNOWING, not in works, which is God's Objective. Bride is a person, not a set of works. And, people are who they are on the inside. I am 'me'. What I do is merely a discrete function, at a given moment. A product of 'me', at most -- but NEVER 'me'. Even an eight-year-old can understand that much.
No Christian, if asked, would say God was second, lol. Yet, the life propounded by today's churches makes Him a very distant second. Which of them teaches that the inner life before the Lord is the ONLY thing that counts, all else being merely condimental? That, after all, IS the First Commandment: Love HIM with all one's heart and soul and mind. ALL, not some. LOVE, not use-as-designer-label for works/experience.
So I am to place first priority on my thought-life before Him, and if people are involved, fine. If not, fine. God first. People are optional. (Ironically, if people are optional in the spiritual life, then people are treated better, for the ego has no need for their approval/disapproval, etc.)
Of course, we all are around each other, optional or no -- so there are indeed requirements for human interaction. But if these requirements are viewed FIRST as "How am I thinking before the Father, as the Son commands?" then..the requirements would be much easier to do. For against love, there is no law. And, Love covers a multitude of sins. It's kinda hard to be thinking of Him and sin at the same time. In fact, impossible.
Whew. Yet another reason for just staying quiet!
