Sunday, November 16, 2008

WHAT IS WORSHIP? PART 1

What comes to your mind when you hear the word "Worship?" It is usually thought of as some religious act done to a diety, often in a particular holy place. Some use it to describe the singing and or prayer time that takes place at church. Whatever definition you come up with, one constant theme would be something of a religious or spiritual nature.

However, as you may already have figured out from reading my other blog entries, I would like to share another view of what worship is that has been hidden in scripture, and is more all encompassing than we have been led to realize.

To start off, most would agree that worship in scripture was given to the true God, and also to false gods. But what is not so well known is that the same worship is also given to humans, and rightly so. You see, when you trace the usage of the Hebrew and Greek word for worship, you will find that it was something expressed to men as well as to God. While worship can have religious connotations to it, by its very nature it does not.

The reason that most are not aware of this is because the same word is rendered in two general ways: 1) As bowing down if done toward a human and, 2) as worship if done toward God. The reason this distinction is made is because the English word worship has acquired a meaning that has restricted it to something done of a spiritual or religious nature. What it originally meant helps us to understand why it was done before humans as well as God. It will also help us see why it is far more encompassing in our lives than we may think.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

BELIEVE IN JESUS? A WORK?

"This is the work of the Mighty-Yoked-One SO THAT you believe in Him whom He has sent." Joh 6:29

Let's compare this with verse 28:

'What shall we do, SO THAT we may work the works of the Mighty-Yoked-One?' Joh6:28

The underlined words "so that" in both verses are the same word in Greek, hina.

Most translations say "This is the work of God, THAT you believe in Him whom He has sent." It looks at first glance as if Jesus is giving a requirement that WE have to do in order to work the works of God. How subtle it is that that very popular interpretation takes believing out of the miraculous and puts it smack dab in the flesh of man.

The word for "that" in these 2 places means the same thing, "in order that" or "so that" as I have translated it here. It points somewhere. Where does it point? It points BACK to something. So it is a result of something, not a requirement to make something happen. See the difference? Let's look at the text.

Notice the difference between their question, and Jesus answer. Jesus wasn't giving them a requirement at all, not even consisting of one thing-believing. He totally took away any requirement by saying that working the works of God is entirely the work of God. See that? They are asking what THEY SHALL DO so they can do God's work. The "so that" in that verse points back to them, and their flesh.

Jesus doesn't tell them THEY can do anything. He points the "so that" in his statement back to God, and the miraculous! God's works being entirely of himself, not from us, produces the desired effect, it produces belief in Jesus. Wow, have we had this verse turned around! So believing is not some work we do in order to work God's works, belief is the response given from the miraculous work of God in the heart of those he is working in! What a difference the word THAT makes!

Friday, November 7, 2008

GOOD AND EVIL

Is evil really the opposite of good? Is evil something that is separate from good? If so, then how can it be true that "From [God] are all things", as the scripture says? Does that mean that evil is within God, part of his very nature? A simple piece of paper will serve, I hope, to illustrate what evil is, and how it can indeed come from God yet not be a part of his nature.

With paper in hand, the first thing we need to do is redefine what God means when he thinks of something as good or evil. The Hebrew people thought in terms of concrete things that you could taste, see, smell, touch, or hear. The Hebrew language used sense oriented words. However, words such as good and evil are abstract things; they are thought oriented words.

What is the concrete meaning of good and evil? To the Hebrew, and to God, something good was functional, and something evil was something dysfunctional. In other words, it either could be used as intended, or it could not.

Now, let us go back to that paper. If it is fresh in our hands, and ready to write on, we could say that the paper was good. In other words, it is functional, because it is intended to be written upon and we can do so. However, if we wanted to make that paper dysfunctional, what would we have to do? That's right. Simply crumple it up in a ball in your hands. Now you have a dysfunctional, or we could also say, evil, piece of paper.

This answers the questions at the beginning of this blog. The paper that is good and evil is the same paper. The paper started out good, and then it was made evil by crumpling. Thus, they are not opposites, but the same, just different forms of the same.

You see, when we think of evil in most cultures today, we tend to associate it with wickedness, with sin. Scripturally that cannot be true, for if it were, then you would have to say that God was wicked, and that God sinned. While evil can express itself in wickedness and sin, in and of itself, evil is merely the distortion of good. To crumple the paper is to distort it.

Remember I also asked how could anything evil come from God, since all things come from him? What comes from God is only good, nothing starts out evil from him. Yet, under his sovereign control, he can choose to "crumple" the good when it reaches us and thus it appears as an evil, as something dysfunctional, from God to us.

An example can be found in Job. We know that God wanted to test Job. That was something good that originated from his very being. Yet, in keeping with the paper illustration, God crumpled that good, using Satan to inflict evil on Job, and yet, Job rightly said that evil came from God himself. God also used his friends to further bring evil on Job in the form of accusations. Job was thus tested and God used it to reveal himself further to Job than he already knew. In the end, good was restored and revealed to Job.

Now, let me speak a bit on the purpose of the test, and how that relates to why God bothers to bring evil on man in those ways.

Why does a magician do magic? What does he want you, the audience, to think about him? Yes, he wants you to think something like, "Wow, he is so amazing! How did he do that?" He wants to direct attention to himself, to be in awe of him and what he can do. Of course, this is selfish.

However, consider that God, like that magician, takes that piece of paper, crumples it up, or maybe even cuts it up, so that it is totally dysfunctional, or evil. He is not going to leave it that way, of course, or that would not be a very good show. He turns around, waves his hand, and restores the paper to its original condition! It is now functional again. He has truly turned evil into good. Why? So that "every knee may bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." In this case, God's selfishness means our very life. For it is only when we acknowledge him and commune with him, giving him the praise that he is due, that we truly live and experience all that is good and functional.

Truly out of him, and through him, and back to him, are all things. Life is a cycle. That is how God works. All things out of him are good, some remain good, some he crumples into evil for his good purpose. When that purpose is completed, he restores it to good, and in that condition it returns back to him.

EITHER/OR, OR BOTH?

A man dies a tragic death. The next day the 2 papers in town report the accident. The first headline reads: "Man dies after being struck by a car." The second paper's headline however, reads: "Man dies after falling off a cliff."

At first glance, these seem contradictory. In our either/or, ridged mindset, we would choose to either believe one or the other headline, dismissing the other one; or, we might dismiss both as being untrue.

However, would it surprise you to know that both headlines were correct? You may have already figured out this was the direction I was heading and already managed to see how both can be true. Yet, in case you haven't, here is what happened:

The man was walking along the road that wound its way up a mountain. He was struck by a car coming around the corner and hurled from the cliff to the rocks below. The first paper reported what the witnesses on the cliff saw, which was the man getting hit by a car and dieing. The second paper reported what the witnesses on the ground below saw; a man hurled from a cliff and striking the rocks below and dieing. Yes, both were correct and factual. Yet both were coming from different vantage points.

For most of my life I lived with the either/or mentality when it came to spiritual things. If I read or heard something that didn't seem to fit what I already believed to be true, I would either dismiss it, or I would believe the new thing I read or heard, dismissing the former idea as untrue. The thought never occurred to me that perhaps both ideas could be true at the same time.

The more however, that I have been studying the Hebrew way of thinking, which includes knowing that there are truths that when viewed separately, appear to contradict one another, the more I am gradually seeing things in their fullness, instead of only in part. Here is one example:

I used to believe that we had a free will, that we make our own choices, and that God only offers the opportunity to me to choose him, or anything that is his will.

Then I came to believe that God, being totally sovereign over his creation, worked in the hearts of man to do whatever it is he wanted, even to the point of changing their will.

At first glance, both of these concepts appear at odds with each other, and in fact there are two major divisions based on their premises: Calvanism and Arminianism.

After considering both of them through a Hebraic mindset, I now understand them to be, not at odds, but perfectly in harmony with each other. Both concepts are true. (Please note that I am only speaking of the concepts as being both true, not all that is contained within those concepts.)

A couple of scriptures that bear this out are:

Pro 16:9 A man’s heart plans his course, but Yahweh directs his steps.

and even more clear:

Php 2:12,13 So then, my beloved, even as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who works in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure.

This is true also with so many other seemingly opposite ideas in scripture. It is a matter of vantage points. You see, from our vantage point on earth, we do make choices, we exercise our will. Yet, unseen to us, from God's vantage point in heaven, he is working in us, giving us the desire and directing our steps to act.

Yes, I know this is not speaking about those who are not believers, but they too are not exempt from God's intervention in their will. Remember that God hardened Pharaoh's heart when he was going to let Israel go before all 10 plagues were poured out? Also recall Balaam, who wanted to curse Israel, but he could not. Canaan was made afraid so that Israel could conquer them, even though they outnumbered them and were more mighty than they. Many more examples could be cited, but you hopefully get the point. Legitimate choices were made, but all under God's sovereign control.

I encourage you to learn to think not so much with an either/or mindset, but consider that more than one idea can be true. Doing so will open up a vista of understanding that would otherwise be missed.

VIOLATE YOUR FREE WILL?

Some would say that God would have to, if he is indeed going to bring everyone to a saving knowledge of Christ, going to have to do so without "violating their free will."

Perhaps this is too simple an illustration, but it helps me understand that it can be loving and good to bring a change to someone's will. That illustration is one everyone living is familiar with-the parent/child relationship.

Consider how we are to raise our children. Do we merely try to coax them gently into doing the right thing, or avoiding the wrong thing, but nothing more, because we are afraid of violating their will? Furthermore, what would most people call parents who do such things? The term negligent is a common one.

A loving parent will do all that is necessary to get the child to "willingly" do what is right and beneficial for them, and avoid doing what is wrong and harmful. Such a "violation" [I don't like to use that term, as it is a loaded one to elicit negative emotions] of their will, if done in love and care, is a very good and necessary thing, when needed.

Yet we as adults get emotional about preserving our will and so, in our minds, we end up with a view of God more like the negligent parent, coaxing, begging, pleading, but nothing more, so as not to violate our "almighty free will." As Jesus might have said, If we, though being evil, can at times get out the rod of correction and spank our child to break their will in love to keep them from danger, how much more so will our heavenly Father do so? I see how a loving parent deals with a child as a wonderful shadow of the reality of how our heavenly Father deals with his creation. I am one who believes that all will willingly acknowledge with joyful hearts that Jesus is indeed Lord to the glory of God the Father, and that he will lovingly and gladly do whatever it takes, even if it is to bring them through the fires of his presence while they hate him, tormenting them with his love until they finally come to their senses.