He Wept

           One of my favorite apologists is Oswald Chambers. I've read all that I've found of his discourses. During his ministry he was supported by a number of different denominations. That fact alone has always intrigued me because his allegiance was never aligned, first of all, to anyone but God on which his devotion was centered, so I was intrigued by an excerpt from a letter of his to Biddy, his soon to be wife and partner in his ministry. 

      "The great hunger more than ever for Him and His work. O how few love and how feeble is my most passionate love. I scarcely know anyone who is consumed for Him. It is all for creeds and phrases and belief, but for Him how few! To know Him ----- that is it. How I fear and hate the pattern and print of the age." This was written in 1908. I regrettably believe he would be even more dismayed today.

     "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.  Acts 11:26"

     After attending many many churches, I regrettably would have to say, the focus is mainly centered on creed. The word denomination is nowhere to be found in the Bible. The word that is used and more appropriate is sect, as in the sect of the sadducees, or pharisees, or nazarenes. Sect would be a much more appropriate word for what we call denominations, biblically speaking, delineating a difference of belief. Yet, we all take the name of Christ, which causes me to question how well do I really know Him or better yet, what is it that I propagate? In the past I mainly presented myself as a fundamentalist, focusing on the basic tenants of the faith that should have unified the church. I don't see this happening. We're dug in, and entrenched in an identification quandary that sets us apart and that I believe leaves us dispiriting, and defeating, waddling in our creedal gymnastics, and I wonder if Jesus weeps for us. He wept for Lazarus. He held the power over life and death and yet He still wept. Death, I believe, is repugnant in and of it's self to our Creator simply because He's the author of life.  For us, choice will have left us behind while judgement awaits. The chance to embrace and touch the hand of creation grieves for the loss of relationship and Jesus weeps.

      What makes us cling knowingly more to creed than to Jesus? When we set ourselves apart, does Jesus weep? Can we disagree without being disagreeable. From my earliest days in Sunday school I always new that He was real and what He said, if I applied it, really worked. I'm as bad as anyone at times in clinging to creed, but belief in creeds doesn't get me into heaven, Jesus does. There's only one Judge, and one way; belief, and knowing where salvation comes from. It's faith in Jesus that moves mountains, not opinion. I want to weep the same as Jesus does; not because He doesn't empower us, but because people are dying in sin every day and we're more worried about them getting indoctrinated to a creed than in them finding a loving God who weeps over us. Time slips away and leaves us not with the purpose of loving fulfillment, but only the companionship of regret and loss.

 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavering to keep the spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.     Ephesians 3:2-6

Relationally Disingenerous - 1 John 4:19

     I'll start with a disclaimer. I use the King James Version, "Textus Receptus" simply because it has the overwhelming volume of ancient documentation. Of course, this post is primarily about one verse that has been altered by what I would deem a misrepresentation for the sake of a more feel good effect. We must be open to the fact that to get a copyright you must have a ten percent alteration from the original and that the Bible is the most widely printed book in the world, not to mention the best seller. Hence one of the reasons behind the massive amount of versions with the accompanying assurance of retail success. I have to note here that even with the King James word for word translation, you still have an abundance of added words, identifiable by their italics, to attain their copyright. Money always seems to facilitate a basis for the ever, all encompassing, motive to enlighten and prosper for the seemingly never ending need of supplicating our appetite for revelation. 

     "We love him, because he first loved us." Noticeably missing from many of the newer versions is the word "him" following "We love." I've always understood that love has to have an object, whether its being a cat, dog, movie, car, or a never ending host of things in which we place our affections on. Stopping at "We love" leaves it hanging, opening many doors for interpretation. Removing the object "him"as they have done opens the door to a lot of speculation and if we do that; why not remove the object of love from the following verse; which would be God, not to mention the object following, "for his hate", which also needs an object. "If a man says I love God, and hateth  his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen. I can understand the thinking behind those that chose to remove the "him" and or "God" from the verse. If you read the verse from 1st John with the objects removed, including the ones that follow hate, it still makes sense as an extension in our behavior to our fellow man; but John was specifically speaking here about our ability to love God and the reciprocal benefits that come from loving him. Let's take it another step and place a different object in place of "him." "We love chocolate cake because he first loved chocolate." We could then sing a rousing chorus of the Beatles' "All we need is love, everybody, all we need is love, love, love is all you need." I'm getting somewhat ridiculous here, but someone opened the door and I had to step in. Our ability to love or show love is from God who created us with the capacity for choice or a will of our own in which we can choose where our affections lie. After all, "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your  Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" There goes Jesus connecting our acts to His Father in heaven. My question is why then do some feel the need for the disconnect. My first thought comes from mans incessant attempts of independence from God; although I don't think that is what is going on here. It stems from a desire to focus on love. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself. It's the deviation of the intention of the verse which focuses on our  ability to love God. It's relationally disingenuous to twist scripture on our part to ingratiate our selfish nature by the omission and intent on the part of the author. In my condition I really need to be able to rest in God's scripture and the ability to rightly apply it to my life. God, help guide me with my own intentions that I might align them with your intentions.

"And when you have attained this knowledge, with what joy do you think you will be filled? Or, how will you love Him who has first loved you?  And if you love Him, you will be an imitator of his kindness. And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God."   Mathetes - "The blessings that will flow from faith."

"But as regards His love and kindness to men, and because he can do all things, He grants to those who love Him the privilege of seeing Him. He says that it is love which makes man perfect, and that he who loves God is perfect in this world and in the world to come. We shall never cease to love God, but the more we behold Him, the more we shall love Him."   Iranaeus - Against the Heresies 

      The early church fathers didn't seem to have a problem making the connection between God's love for us to facilitating an avenue to our loving him. Of course, they weren't worried about re-packaging a product to entice readers to a more progressive and competitive version. How many ways are there to saying the same thing over and over again without damage to intent. Things that are different are not the same. I thank God every day for being the rock upon which we stand; the same today and tomorrow and for eternity. Prudence demands a certain amount of diligence to the honor and integrity of the authors intent. If we profess that scripture is God's word, we must tread lightly to ensure that it stays that way, and leave it without twisting it to our own personal affinities.The danger is real and running amuck leaving us with a pick and choose rationale. If your intent is to have a best seller; stick to writing fictional novels and leave Gods word as he chose to write it.