In Search of Many Schemes…

So I turned my mind to understand, to investigate and to search out the wisdom and the scheme of things and to understand the stupidity of wickedness and the madness of folly.  Ecclesiastes 7:25.

 

To illustrate his point, Solomon uses the following analogy:  I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains.  The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.  Before anyone gets all huffy about this “diatribe” to women, remember Proverbs 31 praised the woman of virtue.  Solomon collected the sayings in that book, which means he wasn’t against women in general, just bad girls.  If you want to compare the amount of times he spoke against women to men, the weight of evidence will be on the male side.

Then what’s he trying to say about women and men in this rather hard observation?

Well, for one thing he’s not saying women are bad in general.  So let’s ask a question:

 

Is the woman the trap or is the man’s desires for her the problem?

 

I say both.  James 1:14…but each one (man) is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.  Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Our biggest “fail” as humans is our unwillingness to look our own desires full in the face.  Or, to be more precise, to look at ourselves in the mirror—literal or figurative—and see who we are without blinders, philters or anything which might hinder a true reading.  Solomon declares that women can snare, trap and chain a man, yet he also chides men for being fool enough to go looking for easy sex.  Oh, he doesn’t mention that word but it is implied.  Men act as their own worst enemy in a quest for sex without consequences.  I’ve know a few women who want this too, but women pursue sex for slightly different reasons than men as a general rule.  That’s not to say a woman can’t be narcissistic because everyone knows better than that; rather, their general goals make sex a means.

Earlier in this chapter we read: There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.  If this is true, then when Solomon says at the end of the chapter:  Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things—while I was searching but not finding—I found one upright man in a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.  This only have I found:  God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes.  Ecclesiastes 7:28, 29.

What we see here is a “connect the dots” kind of logic.  If there is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins, then even that one upright man in a thousand is in search of sex outside godliness.

Why is there not an upright woman with that upright man?

Because, though God made mankind upright, they have gone in search of many schemes.  We are the product of our own desires.  Our world’s condition is a direct result of mankind’s search for anything to quench the thirst for pleasure outside of God’s design.

I refuse to condemn any sinner for being such since I know I am one myself.  If everyone who claims Christ as their savior looks in His perfect mirror, they will know the truth and humbly accept they have no right or place to condemn anyone.  Wisdom is justified by her deeds.  A man who conforms to wisdom realizes his own weaknesses; a woman who does the same recognizes her own failures to hit the bulls eye.

The biggest fail in my view is the refusal to admit our own sinfulness.  For if we not only admit it but gladly point it out—not in general but in fact, we become a true light for grace, mercy, forgiveness and restoration.

Power By Default

Wisdom makes one wise man more powerful than ten rulers in a city.  Ecclesiastes 7:19.

 

Have you ever worked with those in leadership, say in a church setting or city counsel, and realized you knew more qualified people pumping gas at your local station?

Wisdom, knowledge, discernment, compassion, empathy and sympathy are not relegated to those in charge.  I find it ironic how many people in government are highly educated, well connected and powerful yet still make a mess instead of helping things run smoothly.  Oh, sure, they might have started out with grand ideas but once they settled in and realized how little gets done in a democratic machine, decided to work on their retirement instead.

It isn’t the educated, wealthy or powerful who always deserve to be in charge or are the most qualified either.  The history of European monarchies should dispel any grand notions about that being true.  The monarchs and rulers of Europe oppressed their people pretty badly yet were some of the most highly educated (and in that age only educated) of the day.  So education doesn’t guarantee wisdom.

I’m politically and socially skeptical.  I believe human nature tends to mess up good things; things that would work far better if we just let them happen without interference.  Unfortunately, there will always be someone who thinks they know how to run yours and my life better than we do.

It would seem to the casual eye that wisdom and cunning are two halves of the same coin.  The two, however, are not even close, for cunning is wisdom turned sinister, where those who take what wisdom has to offer and use it to gain from it no matter who it hurts.  In other words, a person who understands human nature turns that nature into a profit machine disregarding the outcome.  Cunning uses others as tools for some self-serving goal; wisdom uses its tool to benefit all.  Lying, cheating, double crossing, and using others is not a product of wisdom but of self-centered thinking.

If you are a follower of Jesus, then adhering to strictly political party will be impossible.  Why?  Because social welfare is at the heart of the Bible’s message.  Sodom and Gomorrah weren’t punished just for their sexual sin but their disregard and oppression of the poor, fatherless and widows.  (See Isaiah 1 where God compares fallen Judah with Sodom.)  The NT is replete with instructions about what to do with the church’s funds, very little of it was to go to administration opting rather to help those who could not otherwise help themselves.

Yet wisdom refuses to be duped.  In 2 Thessalonians 3:10 Paul makes a bold statement, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”  The public assistance programs of any government not conforming to Christ will not understand this maxim.  Wisdom teaches us not to argue with fools, which in Proverbs points to one who is spiritually and morally bankrupt.  Trying to explain spiritual truths to those who refuse the Spirit of God’s input is futile for the unspiritual mind cannot grasp them.

It isn’t that a person lacks an understanding of the argument for spiritual things as a POV but that they are unable to see any advantage to them.  If a person doesn’t accept Jesus as the Way, Truth and Life, explaining any principle which adheres to such an ideal to them will fall on deaf ears because they see it as foolish.  The message of the gospel is foolishness to those who seek worldly wisdom and a stumbling block to those who seek works as their way to God.

Wisdom instructs us to avoid arguing about incompatible ideologies.  One who refuses to accept the authority of the Word will never accept an argument from it.  We live this way because we accept its authority; they live their way because they don’t.  It’s as simple as that.  Forcing them to live contrary to their own philosophy by making laws which corner them into acquiescence is oppressive, evil and outside of the character of Jesus.  The Golden Rule (a Christ declaration) says, “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.”  If this is the maxim of Jesus, then making laws which outlaw another’s lifestyle, religious preference, or anything else is a place to tread carefully.

I don’t have all the answers to the complicated questions this discussion brings up.  What I do know is the only way to work through them is to keep the wisdom of Christ in full view.  In order for people to live together in relative harmony, ideologically specific rules must be left to those who follow the ideology.  The societal maxims we agree on should become laws of governance.

Too Much is as Good as Nothing

Whatever exists has already been named, and what man is has been known; no man can contend with one who is stronger than he.  The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?  Ecclesiastes 6:10, 11.

 

For years now that last sentence has haunted me.  I’m a talker, as anyone who knows me locally can tell you, and the verbiage can run on and on.  But as I was looking at various translations of this passage it started to look like Solomon made a statement more about naming things than just talking too much—though I’m sure this principle still holds even there.

The context suggests that increasing the names of whatever exists or who man is doesn’t mean anything; for it doesn’t change who we are.  Today’s names mean less than nothing to us.  We don’t name a child for heritage most of the time, nor do we give them names because they represent something about our lives or the future of our children.  We give them exotic sounding names or good, solid traditional ones for the sound of it.  The reasons hold no depth, no life, no identity, merely a nice way of getting someone’s attention.

Solomon is not only suggesting but emphatically proclaiming that the names humanity gives things matter very little because God has already identified them.  In our modern societies (and this holds mostly for the western nations) we don’t give depth, history or identity to much of anything.  In fact, in all our pursuit of self-actualization and –realization this is the one area we’ve abandoned.  From my perch up on this soapbox I see Americans and Europeans alike obsessed with knowledge and information but rarely about the true meaning of individual identity.  Oh, we’re lonelier and more isolated than ever, for sure, but the more “individual” we become, the less part of the tribe, family or nation we feel or behave.  On the other hand, genealogy is very popular as way of connecting us to our past but deriving much in the way of meaning about lives today.  Whereas in God’s view we are who we have become precisely because of where come from and from whom we are descended.

I’ve often passed by a stream or river and wondered how it got its name.  I mean, living in Portland, Oregon, there are lots of those names running around too.  Just thinking about the name “Portland” makes me stop to consider why it was named this.  Was it just because someone liked the name?  I mean Maine has a city named “Portland” too, which is much older than ours.  Does that mean anything?  Yes.  Ports were places were goods were loaded and unloaded.  “Port land” is a landing spot for goods and services on the Willamette river several miles up from the Columbia river.  What started out as a docking place in a river or beach because a community of traders and whatnot, which turned into a village, then a town, then a city.

I find it strange, now that I know Scripture fairly well, how we lost this tradition of identity through one’s name.  In Hebrew literature a name meant being known for oneself and finding a place within the community.  In a lot of ways this sounds limiting because societies tend towards conformity to the point of pain if we don’t.  Yet in a healthier sense it is about belonging to a family group, tribe and nation.  John tells his readers in Revelation we will all be given new names that only God and we know.  A name is our identity; the more we name things different out of new traditions or convenience, the more they lose their meaning for us as monuments to our past, which plays into our identity.  David met up with a man named “Nabal” meaning “fool”.  I’m sure it wasn’t his given name but one which his reputation warranted.  In our era to call someone a fool is to imply they are stupid and can’t learn, in David’s era it pointed to a person’s lifestyle morally and ethically.

So the more names we give our memorial stones (a tradition Israel had of remembering important events by piling stones up) the less we remember the meaning.  Part of this is due to the language changes over the centuries and especially in the twentieth century.  Five hundred years ago the language adjusted every hundred or so years; today it does so every five to ten (the latter time might be off because the article I read about it is probably two years old).  This means global communication affects how language is used.  Technology changes how words and some names are applied now more than ever.  For thousands of years the abacus was the most sophisticated common “computer” known to mankind; now it is a relic.

How does this affect our subject?

Simply this:  when we change the use of a name or word we affect society’s reaction and understanding of it.  The most we increase the names and rhetoric around a subject or person the less either of those mean to us.  I believe the enemy of our souls knows this and is using an abundance of literature to cloud the person and name of Jesus.  Those who refuse to believe His teachings or in Him as the Son of God will look for and find other explanations for the gospels and Jesus’ life.  The more the words the less the meaning, which ends up not benefiting anyone.  If we truly want to grasp Jesus as He and the disciples presented His message, we must go back to the original language intent on finding words in our own which will as accurately as we can convey His meaning.

Approaching God

Guard your steps when you go to the house of God.  Go near to listen rather than to offer the sacrifice of fools, who do not know that they do wrong.

Do not be quick with your mouth, do not be hasty in your heart to utter anything before God.  God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few.  As a dream comes when there are man cares, so the speech of a fool when there are many words.  Ecclesiastes 5:1-3.

 

We humans talk too much.  I know plenty of people who talk wa-a-a-ay less than me, of course, because I’m a wordy fellow, yet I also know that when it comes to prayer silence is not as popular as pouring out our hearts.  This is pretty natural since we don’t dialogue with God very much at all.  Still, though we live in a new dispensation and paradigm, listening is always better than talking.

Confession time:

I talk to God all day long.  I’m always telling Him things I am thinking or discussing the next move at work.  I know it might sound silly to some of you, but I can’t stop the flow (at least at this stage) because words are how I connect.  Oddly enough, I know I listen—even through all the profuse one-sided conversations we seem to have.  How I know I listen is that when thoughts squeeze their way in between the cracks of my profundity, I stop to chew.

I have a long way to go before I’ll be able to use my ears and mouth in proportion.  Thank God for grace to grow!

Yet the point of Solomon’s exhortation isn’t lost even on a person like me.  The main issue is to gain an understanding God’s place in the universe as well as our hearts.  He’s big, bigger than anything or anyone, yet able to inhabit my heart.  The phenomenon of a God who holds all of creation in the palm of His hand being in my heart—or even interested in my life—is amazing enough.  Yet size only matters to those who use it as a means of power over others (or get their value from it.

We talk about God running and sustaining everything yet sometimes just don’t recognize what that means.  Sure He takes care of all the big stuff like planets, nation building and certain people’s careers, but these things are the more obvious things.  Where it really gets interesting for me is that each cell has a power pack inside it that scientists are still trying to unravel.  Why do these amazing organisms continue to operate sometimes long after their host dies?  What supplies them with the life force necessary to keep performing their function?

I believe God’s life force permeates everything and everyone.  This same power emanates from a being who is not only sentient but intimately personal.  He created one of the most person acts we humans experience then compared it to His own relationship with the Godhead and us.  I know a lot of people who are weird-ed out by God’s claim to be spiritually “sexual” with us, but their problem stems from their lack of understanding not the act itself.  Sex is intimacy not just pleasure; it’s pleasure not just intimacy.  The two go together on purpose for God illustrates through this one act what is in His heart for us.  Now we, on the other hand, have so many issues around sex and intimacy that some (probably many) experience real difficulty when this subject comes up.  The problem isn’t with God, it’s with us.

We pervert the works of God then blame Him for the outcomes.  We twist our natures around pleasure, power, wealth and selfish ambition then resent Him for being bigger than all of us.  All of us struggle to look at pretty much every faucet of life without the cataracts of sin.  It isn’t God’s fault that we’ve perverted intimacy into something narcissistic.  So why can’t we grasp His goals for personal contact with us?  Our twisted POV prevents us from being healthy enough to experience the fullness of God.

Can you picture God’s presence as both overwhelmingly awe-inspiring as well as pleasurable?  The orgasm becomes a mere simile for experiencing God.  The more I know God in His purity, and thus realize my own perversity, the more I know everything within His context is clean, clear, beyond my imagination to experience and full of deep spiritual meaning.  We must get beyond our perverted twists on God’s creation; for if we don’t, we end up with nothing more than Victorianism disguised as piety or going after something for merely the pleasure of it.  Human rules will never prevent the sinful nature from expressing itself nor will we ever find satisfaction in just pleasure.

Jesus changed all the rules of coming to God when He became human.  It’s weird that at first we’re told to be careful when we approach God, then have Him call us friends.  “I have called you friends…I no longer call you servants because a servant doesn’t know his master’s business.  Instead I have called you friends.”  Why?  Because He let us in on God’s mind and plans, that why!  He shared the heart of God rather than just the rules of a boss or king.  Jesus got intimate with humanity to demonstrate the desire of God’s heart—a reconciled friendship with us.

Why did He do this?  Because He wants to be intimate with us!  He shared His very soul in coming to earth by being born, living and breathing as a human.  He experienced everything a man can experience besides marriage.  That should tell us something about the nature of God in relation to humanity.  It should enlighten our dark understanding of the divine and set us on a course for greater pleasure in the presence of the Source of pleasure.  We use the word “joy” to replace happiness because we fear God isn’t concerned with our happiness; yet it was He who created our ability to be happy.  We wouldn’t know the word or emotion if He hadn’t invented it.  We need to get over our perverse self-denial so that we can practice it in the context of heaven’s gift in Christ.

Does it strike you as weird that God invented pleasure?  Then chew on this:  He created foods of all stripes then gave humans taste buds in order to enjoy them.  He created flowers, scented plants and animals then gave humans olfactory glands to appreciate them.  He created colors with so many hues we cannot invent enough combinations to encompass them all, then gave us eyes with brains encoded to be overwhelmed by a sunset or whatever.  He gave us a reproduction apparatus then made it a pleasure to procreate.  He gave us ears and made voices sing, birds warble, lions roar and mountains rumble.

Our God “dwells” in unapproachable light, yet loves us so much in a purely intimate way He sent His own to be one of us.  Yes, we need to be in awe.  Yes, we should be reverent.  Yes, we should be overwhelmed.  Yes we ought to seek intimacy and be pleasured by His presence.

That is just utterly amazing.

Two Are Better than One

Again I saw something meaningless under the sun:  There was a man all alone; he had neither son nor brother.  There was no end to his toil, yet his eyes were not content with his wealth.  “For whom am I toiling,” he asked, “and why am I depriving myself of enjoyment?”  This too is meaningless—a miserable business!

Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their work:  If one falls down, his friend can help him up.  But pity the man who falls and has no one to help him up!  Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.  But how can one keep warm alone?  Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves.  A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.  Ecclesiastes 4:7-10.

 

Living alone by having it thrust on us through circumstances versus choosing to be so are two different things.  Some choose it out of a desire for spiritual focus, some have problems being in close contact with other people, and others just because they don’t want to be bothered by anyone interfering with their routine.  .  To one degree or another, these choices are all based on narcissistic attitudes, if we take that word to mean what makes me feel good as opposed to being in community.  Others chose community in one form or another but ended up alone through the choices of someone else

The man in Solomon’s illustration works hard to gain wealth for himself thinking that he’ll be satisfied at the end of the day.  When he accomplishes his dream he’s left feeling empty because there’s no one to share it with and he’s alone.  Our resident wise man claims this is a case of chasing after the wind and totally void of anything meaningful.

Why?

For the simple reason that all of us need relationships in one form or another.

We were built, designed and set up for community.  The first thing God did was create a community of two.  It wasn’t an accident of evolution or a case of artistic flair but a programmed characteristic which defines the human psyche.  Those who think they can survive without community should just see the roster of counseling appointments treating the social networking woes of thousands of people.  It’s not hard to see how many of us get closed down because community hurts more often than it heals, but that further emphasizes our need for Jesus, in my estimation.

The teachings of Christ were not principally meant for political outcomes or religious piety but to restore relationships.  The song the angels sang at His birth wasn’t concerned about the latest doctrinal stance or treasure trove of things God required, instead their focus was, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace, good will to men…”  Good will is all about relationship building, which has something to do with the boundaries of love, though very little to do with the minutiae of human laws.  Because we can’t seem to conform to love, we make laws to regulate human behavior—a reason why the laws of most countries are becoming more and more complicated.

Fallen human nature angles for the loopholes on such a regular basis that we begin to think laws and punishment are the only way to curb it.  We’re dead wrong, of course, yet humanity as a whole steadfastly doesn’t want God completely in charge; tending instead to invest in anything but Him.  It’s a failed experiment, this endeavor to find self-actualization and godlike status without the Creator to guide us and temper our pride.  The most anyone can be like God is by imitation; other than that we have no option but entropy and death.

The first time I read this passage it validated marriage for me, since that’s where my focus was at the time.  As I’ve grown in my walk with God it now validates every aspect of human relationships.  We need family, friends and social circles to thrive.  As I said before, no business can succeed without a community to support them.  No painter, musician or actor can continue publishing their art, songs or stories if no one sees or listens to them.  So it validates our relationships in all their glory no matter what the ties that bind.

The world is violent place, pretending it’s not causes no end of heartache and trouble.  What’s the quote, “Evil men succeed when good men do nothing” or something to that effect.  We miss the point when we figure love should conquer all.  It does, but sometimes we have to use the stick of love instead of the helping hand.  There are people out there who are not damaged, abused or neglected but selfish to the core and uncaring about who they hurt as long as they get theirs.  Denying these people exist will only hurt all the more when they run us over.  Every macro culture and micro culture will contain a selection all types of people.  Hopefully, there are more of the type who construct and sustain than those who destroy or drain it.

My point being, no matter how we slice it, we still need to continue in community with one another.  All the wealth in the world and toys it brings will not replace solid loving relationships.  The man or woman who works hard and is successful will feel more so when there’s someone else to share it with and appreciate his or her efforts.  Loneliness sucks, folks.  In contrast, however, the person who cannot seem to get it off the ground no matter how hard they work will also feel better about life when they share it with someone who cares for them and for whom they care.

To Search or Give up? To Keep or Throw Away?

…A time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away…Ecclesiastes 3:6.

 

In some ways it seems too simple to continue commenting on the list given by Solomon because the points written are just such basic commonsense that to say anymore is almost intellectually insulting.  Yet, though we acknowledge the wisdom of these basic truths, we don’t always know when or where to practice them.

For instance, a show like “Hoarders” would never even get off the ground in popularity unless we all had some sympathy for the people we’re watching obsess about stuff.  I know it sounds weird to say, but I think there’s a little hoarder in all of us in one way or another, because those who react strongly to “too much junk” in their garage or home are the same people who collected it in the first place.  Their worry isn’t that they have the stuff itself, it’s that they appear to be wasting space they could use better for some other purpose or thing.

Almost every reaction is equal to its counterpart action, except in the realm of emotional energy, for most of us overreact when it comes to certain things.  If we were hurt as children by other kids making fun of us, we’ll be crusaders for eliminating such behavior in people wherever we go.  If we experience poverty or witness the awful tragedy of starvation elsewhere in the world, those of us who have a strong empathy bone will crusade to eliminate hunger and poverty in the world.  Much of the time, the emotion the thing or situation inspires in us is stronger than warranted; although I will say watching children suffer cannot get enough attention.

The problem with most reactions is they aren’t sensible solution-based responses but rather over the top.  The way to solve most problems is to methodically approach them with a plan of action which takes care of the root issue causing the tragic consequence.  In the case of most starving children, poverty isn’t caused by the rich countries exploiting the poor necessarily; instead it grows out of the political climate in which these kids live.  I lived in South Africa for a number of years, and what I saw forced me to take a deep breath and reassess what caused such awful conditions.

Let me explain.

Apartheid (pronounced “apart-hate” in Afrikaans, meaning “separate heads”) created a climate where abuse could continue without much interruption from the rule of law.  At first, it seemed like a great idea to give the tribes homelands (separate states not the abuse), a solution which the Americans practiced with the Indian tribes by giving them reservations on which to live autonomously, to keep them spread out so they wouldn’t be close enough to war with each other.  What it ended up being (and probably was intended to be by the white powers of the day) was a way to keep the African people in a place outside of the white habitat.  This didn’t bother the blacks until they began to adopt Western culture in certain ways and technology.  Yet the poverty and disease amongst the African people didn’t directly result from white people’s interference or strategy.

Indigenous societies only function well within the paradigm of their traditions and historical framework.  Introduce a new culture and the two create either a vacuum for the native culture or a hybrid in which both adjust their framework to adopt certain aspects of the another.  In South Africa the blacks didn’t remain in the homelands but became increasingly urbanized without the necessary adjustments to the Western emphasis on education and holding down a regular occupation.  Certain African cultures are by nature a very fluid and they view time in a rather easy going way.  The same can be said of most tropical cultures for the need to be constantly on guard against cold weather doesn’t exist so the food supply isn’t as much of a problem as in northern regions.  This said, Africans are not lazy, though they might appear to be by Western standards, they are just more laid back about time itself.  When they began to mix more and more with the White culture through work and services, it changed the paradigm and their traditions began to get fuzzy around the middle.  What the country ended up with was townships.  This produced another problem which the white government wrestled with internationally.

The point is, letting go of our traditions for the sake of adopting a new paradigm is a struggle we all go through to some extent.  We can’t judge a third world mentality by our “sophisticated” modern society because we too hold within even this traditions which science and education have shown to be both hubris or, at the very least, hair-splitting and unnecessary.  The South African Natives’ rate of adjustment has been remarkable since the change of government.  The people are beginning to see the difference between the ideal and the reality.

Again, the main point is that the reaction of the European settlers to the native cultures overreached and over reacted, as did, in turn, the native cultures.  We can blame the whites for their disregard of the blacks’ humanity without losing sight of the nature of the tribal wars spurred by the same problem.  This isn’t a lesson on African politics or inspired by any desire to convince you who was at fault, but what I want to point out is that the Africans failed themselves by clinging to the traditions of their past which wouldn’t fit into the new paradigm.  The Europeans failed everybody (including themselves) by refusing or may be just ignoring the humanity of the native tribes.  The European cultures felt superior to the natives; the natives felt superior to the Europeans.  Wars broke out and those with the guns won.  History is written by the victors until someone comes along with better information.

The European culture clung to their attitudes towards the natives long after they should have adjusted their thinking, and lost the country to the change that inevitably came.  If both sides had integrated and appreciated one another’s strengths as well as historical significance, South Africa would’ve turned into a truly amazing place to live.

But here’s the kicker:  The abuser is now being marginalized and condemned by not only the ruling party but the world at large.  When we cling to things too long the value goes down except in our emotional attachment to them.

There’s a time to stop sharpening tools that have metal fatigue (you didn’t know metal did this?).  There’s a time to hold onto a tool what hasn’t been used enough.  There’s a time to let go of friendships which are toxic or at best, a drag on life in general.  There are times to hold onto even painful friendships because the person we’re involved with is going through a season which won’t change them except for the better.  There’s a time to search for new things and time to just be content with what we have now; to search for that missing person and a time to give up because the resources and time spent don’t produce any evidence or the person.

These are sometimes hard decisions to make.  It’s tough to navigate the waters of when, where and how long if the evidence isn’t clear.  The best we can do is judge by what we know works for us personally and won’t harm anyone in the process.  Sometimes we can’t avoid hurt to another by our choices because the circumstance demands choosing the best of bad options.

Whatever the case, we must develop godly wisdom to make these decisions.  I’ll end with James 3:17, 18—But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere.  Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness.

The Right Kind of Justice

Whatever is right, whatever is pure…

 

Now once we mention truth you’d think the spectrum of stuff covered would be met, but Paul goes on to expand that thought to things that are right and pure.  Doesn’t pointing to truth cover everything pure and right?

Yes.  Yet at the same time truth includes things that are evil as well, for there are impure truths we face daily.  Truth points to whatever is rather than the myth or story we build up around it.  For example we might not want to admit we feel covetous of  someone’s property so we decide to build up a justification for our greed and explain away our desire to make ourselves believe the lie (if that’s possible) and fool others into buying our story.  Our rationalization doesn’t make our motives pure nor does it make them right, but they are still true.

The word used for right in the NIV is translated just in the KJV.  I don’t believe it’s any accident these words are related to each other, for whatever is just is also what is considered right as well.  The confusion with these ideals grows out of the fact that we compartmentalize our lives so much we forget the relationship between them, forgetting they are intertwined.  The Greek word denotes the state of being right or right conduct as interpreted by Vine’s.  Yet it isn’t about self-righteousness, a world-based comparison or confidence; rather our state of being right is judged by the standard created by God.

This state of rightness goes hand in hand with that of purity, which by any definition usually means uncontaminated by another element.  For instance, the purity of gold is measured by itself; for gold to be pure all other matter must be removed.  In order for our Christian walk to be pure all other rational ideals must be purged from our operating manual.  Not that we aren’t supposed to be aware or educated in the other ethics, far from it, but our modus operandi must not be based on them.  The measure we use as believers comes from Christ alone, and through His lens we interpret what we know as true.  In other words, what we call “evil” gets its designation from what Jesus calls evil.  Any deviation from His Word is evil by this standard of measurement.

Grace becomes incredibly necessary here because none of us are untainted by the world and therefore our interpretation of truth will be skewed by our sin.  I’ve watched the church flounder with how to live a right-eous life untainted by the world.  The church I grew up in believed and taught that we were to have very little association with the world around us to the point that even childhood friendships were restricted to other kids within the body.  My folks weren’t this strict and seemed to see no sense in that attitude, but no matter, the prevailing practice still influenced the way I thought and acted.

The first inkling I had that something was amiss was when I read 1 John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.  My take on this text is no matter what we strive for in Christ, our understanding of right will be somewhat skewed by our sinful nature.  I’m not saying we can’t find truth or grasp the fact/reality of righteousness, but we must practice what we discover with a humble realization we may not have a clear picture of the truth.  Over the years I’ve relearned many truths taught in the Bible over and over again.  Just when I think a truth is clear and no more can be learned from it I’ll read another text that sheds a greater light on it.  If Paul proclaimed without shame that he hadn’t arrived just yet (and this declaration was made towards the end of his life), then I see no reason for any shame on my part for lacking a full understanding either.

 

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.  And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into His likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.  2 Corinthians 3:18.

 

It’s interesting Paul words it this way for it fits right in with the point I’m trying to make here.  Our ability to see through the eyes of the Spirit comes from taking off the veil of the old covenant’s glory.  The Jews of Moses’ day wanted to block the sight of God from their vision because it not only hurt their eyes and stunned their minds but it convicted them of their sinful/separated condition.  I’ve heard quite a few sermons using this passage in Corinthians to lambaste the reaction of Israel at Mt. Sinai for their fear and revulsion (?) of God’s displayed power.  And maybe the preachers who call them down for it should.  At the same time, I just see us holding onto and teaching the basic elements of grace without any desire to go to a deeper understanding of what it means to experience such a wonder.  Dietrich Bonhoffer declared such a grasp of grace as “cheap” because it never led to greater obedience or sacrifice on our part.

My point is human nature hasn’t changed all that much since those freed slaves turned away from the glory reflected on Moses’ face.  Think about it a minute:  they couldn’t take the glory of God reflected on a human face—a fallen, recovering sinner like Moses—which was barely a minute fraction of the full force of it.  Whenever I begin talking about the things of God as I’m learning them, I’m amazed and disappointed by the lack of enthusiasm or interest within the church at large.  It seems the general populace of the body of Christ wants only so much truth and then feels content to hang out there.

That attitude doesn’t fly with God.  Though many of these juvenile believers will be saved on the Day, they won’t be commended for their disinterest in spiritual depth or growth.  I’ve received plenty of rebukes from even pastors who think I’m too heavy with what I tell people…and granted some of what these people say is true…But I know that anyone who hungers for the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Word of Truth will get weird looks and/or shunned for their enthusiasm.  I had a couple of pastors I’ve served under tell me pointblank, “You’re no preacher, Jon,” in an effort to humble me, I guess.  I don’t know why they felt the need to make this point since I’ve never pursued being in that profession for Christ nor do I attempt to preach at all.  Instead I testify to what I’ve seen and heard; if anything, I consider myself merely a witness to for Jesus.

In my somewhat myopic opinion of these preachers’ expressed views, they said this to me because of some threat they felt with my status as a musician in their church.  Each time I agreed with them, then told them what I’ve written here—in different words, of course, but the message was the same.  I’m not writing this to express my frustration with these men, instead I’m pointing out their need to put me in my place is a sign of competition and immature spirituality.  Those who strive to know God, understand the need to testify about Him.  I’m no preacher, and probably not even a teacher for that matter, I am, however, a seeker of truth and believe that Jesus is the Way to that end.  As a part time worship leader, I stand on a platform where I can say anything I want pretty much.  That gives me power for the few minutes I’m on stage directing musical traffic.  An immature Christian takes this kind of opportunity and uses it to address their pet subjects or peeves, while those growing from glory to glory learn the platform is a place to declare the reputation of God—or, put another way, His work in their lives.

Every place Jesus healed someone just about, they were told to testify to what God had done for them.  A preacher needs to be careful not to squelch this—while at the same time reigning in those like me who might be longwinded.  It’s a delicate balancing act, I know, for I needed rebuke for my unconscious (and thereby inconsiderate) use of time in the worship.  What should have been encouraged was the technique of speaking up for God.  Instead they sought to squelch any expression other than worship through song.  But praise and worship is not just about singing, it also includes declarations of God’s work in our lives and during this time we should  be calling on the body of Christ to speak out what God has done for them.  As a leader in worship, it’s my job to give them permission through my example.  Otherwise it becomes a preacher/worship leader dictatorship and one sided praise from the pulpit where the congregation just becomes a bucket we pour into.  They might join in through singing, but generally it boils down to spiritual entertainment rather than a corporate worship.

Purity is the state of being untainted by selfish ambition, pride of place or need for being center stage.  A person truly seeking God will shun the spotlight of human glory for that of God’s.  In other words, they will use the platform they’re given to reflect His glory and not their own.

I confess I am not pure.  I’m not even sure I’m right.  Where I can say with confidence that I’m on the right path to these truths in Christ is when I rightly divide the Word of Truth.  I desire that ever increasing glory which inspires a hunger for more.  That is growing pure and right.  The just shall live by faith; those who desire purity seek justice; being right means being pure; being pure means being just.

How about you?

The Context of Peace

Don’t be anxious…And the peace of God will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.

Finally, brothers, whatever is true…And the God of peace will be with you.  Philippians 4:1-9.

Something about the context of this passage keeps tickling the back of my mind.  Every night before I go to sleep I’ve been reading these words over and over trying to figure out what’s catching my attention and wondering what bothered me about my observation skills.  So I read verse 1, then all the first sentences to the paragraphs following.  Though Paul speaks to the whole church at Philippi, he’s really addressing the issue between Euodia and Syntyche.  In fact, I think he’s using these two ladies’ quarrel to bring up the characteristics of God’s peace and what it offers.

If the God of peace rules in our hearts, then we don’t have to be anxious about anything since we know we can present our requests to Him through prayer and petition.  Our sense of gratitude grows out of our experience of His peace.  In other words the reason why anxiety isn’t part of our emotional diet after a while comes directly from His history of provision and the peace that transcends all understanding.

The two women were letting a disagreement break the harmony of the church and their own relationship.  If the peace of God truly rules the heart, a person won’t be able to be divisive, unruly, resentful or disagreeable, for the glue of Christ’s love binds us all together.  Remaining outside of the virtue of Jesus while claiming to live for Him, creates an oxymoronic state in our souls—a conflicted nature divided and at war with itself.  Conflicts within the church can’t always be resolved by one person being convinced of another person’s conclusion; sometimes we have to agree to differ.  Perspective being what it is more often than not leaves us at odds with each other if we aren’t bathed in the peace which transcends understanding.

The only reason for a person to be put out of fellowship is admitted, unrepentant sin or outright heresy.  This person must know what they are doing is wrong and not care nor want to conform their opinion to the teachings of Christ for them to be outside fellowship.  Otherwise, everyone is to remain a part of the body.  But before such drastic measures happen, several steps must be taken to ensure the person in question refuses to conform to the mind of Christ.

Sometimes what instigates a new denomination is the old guard refusing to allow the new to have a differing or even adjusted opinion or interpretation on disputable matters.  Just as often it happens in reverse.  Paul listed several in Romans 14 and subsequent letters expanded on these issues.  The practices of the early church from what I know of its history and the letters of Paul suggest to me there was quite a lot of leeway for doctrinal differences as long as these differences didn’t go against the basic gospel teachings the apostles taught or what was known of Jesus’ instructions.

If God’s peace cannot bring reconciliation between believers, something’s wrong with it.  Let me say it again, if we can’t find His peace in the midst of our disagreements, it doesn’t work.

Or…something’s radically wrong with us.

I’m biased towards the latter since I have many, many faults.  Agreeing in the Lord isn’t about coming to the same opinion or even copping to the same view, but realizing our differences are what give us the complete picture of God.  What sin has done to us is make us myopic to the point of obsession.  My POV usually struggles to take in more than one or two points at any one time.  I can multitask when I know my job well, but most of the time I’m overwhelmed concentrating on more than one thing.

With a complex God in our sites it’s quite easy to forget mercy while thinking about His judgment; to forget grace when thinking about His righteousness; to forget forgiveness while thinking about the price He paid.  He is all of these things at the same time and doesn’t need to switch hats in order to apply one or the other.

C. S. Lewis in his book “The Great Divorce” claimed all of hell could fit on the head of a pin because it depended on small thinking.  I say that almost all divisions in the church are caused by small minded people trying to cope with big ideas about God and failing miserably.

Yet even in our inability to get along there’s abundant grace.  I might call denominational bias on the carpet for its exclusive nature and antagonism to the call of Christ to be one, but I recognize it won’t do any good.  We’re just too fallen; our bodies and minds too beaten down with the weight of sin and its destructive nature to be anything but broken.  This very reality is why the gospel is so wonderful and beautiful.  Where the brokenness exists, His grace covers all.

Euodia and Syntyche probably reconciled on behalf of their beloved Paul, but the church since has shown less inclination to be so willing to put aside their differences and demonstrate the peace God offers in our ignorance and lack of perspective.  Those of us who grasp this concept, however, have an obligation to its message to demonstrate it at every opportunity.  Which means, God is gonna’ probably throw us in the deep end where the disagreements are the most painful so He can show through us what He desires of the church.

Agree in the Lord

I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord.  Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.  Philippians 4:1-3.

We’re not given the reason these women were having a problem, all we know is there was a disagreement of some sort, and it was enough of one to cause a rift.  It’s interesting that Paul never swerves from naming names or publicizing problems.  Unlike many today he’s not afraid of sin being known nor opposed to exposing it for what it is.  In this instance, however, there doesn’t seem to be any sin involved directly, rather it sounds more like a difference of opinions or methodology.

And who is this loyal yokefellow Paul addresses without giving any indication of a name?  I like this reference because it shows these letters were personal communications rather than theological dissertations.  Instead of Paul attempting to be the sole interpreter of this new religion he’s personally instructing those with whom he shared his life and God.  The gospel is one of restoring the family of God to its natural state; for make no mistake we are in an unnatural limbo since the fall and experiencing entropy on a more and more evident scale.  The work of God is personal.  It is the heart of God worked into and throughout His people to reconcile man to Himself and human to human.

Those who create any other kind of gospel ignore the obvious truth found in Paul’s plea with two women he knew as coworkers in the gospel; signifying to me they were quite close in pure platonic love.  And what I mean by “create” another kind of gospel is that Paul taught the churches to accept one another in love, of which any deviation from that would be a creative exercise outside it.

It’s now strange to me that uniformity rules the church rather than unity in our diversity.  I don’t believe we need to excuse sin, but we certainly don’t need to be beating the sinners up or ostracizing them for being such.  If Christ died for the ungodly and we are saved because of it, it means that once (and most likely still, in places) we were ungodly and lost as well.  Arrogance or any form of exclusive attitude applied to the work or life of God is completely out of place.  A person who confesses their sin will be forgiven—even if it is a recurring problem.  We can preach salvation and love all we want but without practicing grace we will condemn to darkness those Jesus came to save.   Anyone who approaches the work of the gospel in this way will find themselves in a cold, dark place where fear reigns supreme or spiritual apathy rules the twilight.

Again, notice there is no mention of what divided these two women, we don’t know how heavy the issue was, for Paul shows discretion in not revealing it in his letter; aware, no doubt, it would be read to other churches at one time or another.  What he does do with their issue is beg them to agree in the Lord, which is poles apart from coming to an agreement.  To agree with one another in the Lord takes on a whole different meaning when we look at how Paul and the other apostles approached differences in the church.  In Romans he brings up the issues of eating or abstaining from certain foods, special celebration days or Sabbaths (usually a specific Jewish favorite).  In other letters he broaches these subjects by intensely begging the church to accept one another in love and leave the differences to ones conscience rather than a setting a bunch of hard fast rules for everybody.  This says to me his primary concern wasn’t doctrinal unification but heart.

At the same time this doesn’t do away with the need for sound doctrine.  Anyone who teaches freedom from the law in any form other than the higher calling of love, which goes beyond the law to complete heart change, is slapping God in the face.  They might not know they are doing so, but they are.  Grace without the law is dead.  Without the law to condemn us we have no need of grace or mercy.  Yet to teach that morals are not necessary is ludicrous.  No one in their right mind thinks that theft or rape is ok, therefore teaching freedom from any standard of conduct by using a rather fluid “love” for mankind destroys both the character of God and stunts the believer into a infantile minded follower.

People who understand the road to truth get the contrast better if they study both sides of the issue.  I don’t have to agree with your conclusions nor should you mine to grasp the truths of either argument.  Yet I know I appreciate those who oppose my viewpoint because they challenge me to think outside my own box of crayons, almost forcing me to accept the fact one can come down on different sides of almost any issue.  Deciding what is or isn’t necessary to practice never becomes completely objective since we rationalize what is truth from our own take on what is rational.  There is no escape from our myopic take on gospel truth unless we truly give ourselves over to being the body of Christ by allowing others to challenge our conclusions.

The problem with most of us is we feel put down the moment someone challenges our POV.  In most cases it probably is since humans love being superior as well as condescending to one another.  I suspect Euodia and Syntyche experienced something along this line.  The human condition hasn’t changed all the much over the eons, though the traditions and cultures might vary a bit.  Our heart follows the logic of our grasp of truth and what is important, which means we feel the same emotions though the exact issues making us feel these might be different.  The women experienced a strong enough division Paul felt inspired to beg them to reconcile.  Whatever the issue was between them, it was enough to keep them at odds for several months because Rome was quite journey from Philippi and news didn’t travel that fast.

Paul, however, unlike many of us, didn’t ask them to come to a mutually acceptable conclusion but to agree with each in the Lord.  That’s quite a different thing by comparison.  To agree in the Lord means to me we let the disputable matters go unresolved and must leave them up to the conscience rather than beating each other up over personal convictions.  This means, of course, we must develop discernment on what the disputable matters actually are.  Unfortunately human beings like to play God without having the universal wisdom, compassion, knowledge and a host of other truths and attitudes necessary to judge the rightness or wrongness of whatever is being discussed.

Yet his loyal yokefellow was his ace in the hole.  Paul’s appeal to this man meant the dude had been educated and immersed in the proper approach to godly wisdom and decorum.  We’re not told if the problem was ever resolved or peace between the women restored, but we do have the words of Paul pleading with them to come to wholeness in Christ.

In our relationships with others unity in Christ is of utmost importance as a witness for Him.  Being right is secondary.  Our common ground is always Jesus; our glue is always the love of Christ which constrains us to good works.  If we accepted one another as Christ does us, what would the church look like?

The Pattern

Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the patter we gave you.  For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ.  Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame.  Their mind is on earthly things.  But our citizenship is in heaven.  And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables Him to bring everything under His control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like His glorious body.

Therefore, my brothers, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, that is how you should stand firm in the Lord, dear friends!  Philippians 3:17-4:1.

Two phrases stand out as fulcrum points here.  First, we have Paul encouraging his readers to follow his example and the believers who adhere to the pattern he and his partners gave them.  Second, he makes it clear the pattern is the method by which they should stand firm in the Lord.

I would love to know exactly what that pattern looked like lived out according to Paul and Associates.  Words are not meaningless but they don’t convey many of the nuances which would clear up some of the debate 2000 spiritual rabbit trails bring up.  Actually, I think Paul does a good job describing the pattern to the Philippians, but I’m curious to know how it applies in specific situations he doesn’t address.

Sometimes it’s hard to reconcile the principle of remembering our citizenship is in heaven while making a living and coping with the earthly realities.  Since I’ve read many of his other letters with similar instructions but more practical guidelines, I don’t believe he is telling us stop living in the world or making a place here.  I do think he’s warning us not to get too attached to our “stuff” here because it’s a temporary situation.

It’s not hard to picture the type of people who live as enemies of the cross, although I’d still not like to be the one to name them very often.  Making a judgment call about anyone’s spiritual status is dangerous at best and down right detrimental at worst.  Still, we must understand this truth in Christ so that we are not the ones living as His enemies; for as Paul says elsewhere:  all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial; all things are permissible, but I will not be ruled by anything.  If we call Jesus our “Master,” then our lives must demonstrate the truth of this.

Paul called himself a slave of Christ; and it’s only within this context that we can read any statement in which he calls Jesus “Lord” or “Master”.  Unless we get this concept, we will misunderstand where we stand in the general mix.  If we get off on one little point, it can mean being off in a big way later on.  Anyone who knows basic Algebra or Geometry understands that even a small degree of deviation from the line means separation from it pretty quickly.  The smallest deviations are hardest to detect, however, since they move seemingly parallel for such a long time.  Give this deviation a few years to travel and we end up with a pretty big space between the original line and where we end up.

It’s one of the reasons I believe in humility where the Bible is concerned.  Everybody struggles so much to grasp even the simplest concepts Scripture poses for our instruction that I believe we need to stop worrying about how far we or anyone else might be from the truth.  It’s safe to just assume we are off in several ways and the different perspectives within the body of Christ forces us out of a complacent acceptance of our own spiritual superiority.

Again, in another place, Paul claims we live as aliens in this world.  In his POV “alien” would mean someone from another country not probing egg-headed beings from space; to the Philippians he makes the argument for their citizenship in heaven.  Anyone whose god is their stomach would find this truth a little disturbing, since a person would be known by their tribal or national affiliation.  So much of a person’s identity in Paul’s era wrapped itself up in national or tribal associations that someone without a country, tribe or family was either looked down upon or ostracized all together.  Anyone who claimed no loyalty to a group would be seen with more suspicion than someone from an enemy nation because mainly outcasts or criminals claimed such status.

Where we get our identity from tells those around us who we are.  No matter what anyone wants to believe about our job title, marriage status or whatever else people ask about at parties, our identity derives directly from our affiliations.  Who we are connected to sometimes matters more than what we do.  For instance, say a man is related to the president of the United States as a nephew or cousin but works as a janitor, he will get respect from not only his peers but anyone who finds out about it just because of this connection.  It doesn’t matter that he’s probably not well off or traveling in powerful circles; just the fact he’s related to someone that powerful gives him a certain amount of notoriety.

Our citizenship is in heaven, so our identity comes from there.  If we are preoccupied with “earthly” things, we misrepresent our country of origin.  When I go visit another country, I am an American still.  My accent, relationships and a host of other verbal and non-verbal cues tell everyone where I come from and to whom I belong.  But when I begin to blend into the population, take on their mannerisms, speak their language, support their economy and generally become nationalized, I am no longer strictly an American but something of an expatriate.  I can still do all this without betraying my country; however, the moment I do anything that goes against my country of origin’s interests, I become a traitor.  Even if I don’t renounce my American citizenship formally, going against its policies, traditions, or interests in that place betrays my claims to belong.

Now there are many who set up a host of rules and regulations for belonging to the Christian faith, and I’m not sure I want to argue for or against all these.  Let’s just suffice it to say, the Bible makes it really simple to be a member.  1 John 2:3-6 makes it abundantly clear what it means to belong to Christ:  We know that we have come to know Him if we obey His commands.  The man who says,  “I know Him,”  but does not do what He commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.  But if anyone obeys His word, God’s love is truly made complete in him.  This is how we know we are in Him:  Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did.  Simple, eh?

No, I guess it’s not, because we have 2500+ denominations out there to prove how many ways we can interpret what it means to “obey His commands” as well as a host of arguments and discussions over which commands we must obey.

Yet I do believe there is a simple rule for us to follow:  Imitate Jesus.  That might sound confusing, but really it takes away a lot of backwash from the water of life.  When Jesus says (as Matthew 18:15-20 records it) to confront sin a certain way, then we do it that way.  If in the same context He tells us to treat a brother or sister who will not be reconciled like a pagan or tax collector, then we must look first at how He treated these people instead of imitating the world around us—even the religious world to which we belong gets this wrong.  If Jesus associated with tax collectors and sinners by going to their houses and eating their food, then I doubt He means for us to cut them off completely from our lives.

Do you see the difference?  The world accepts others based on sameness, agreement or capitulation; the Body of Christ accepts others based on the cross.  To live as an enemy of the cross is not only to be a glutton or sinner, but to continue in the world’s values.  If while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, then how should we demonstrate our citizenship to the young believers and those outside the body of Christ?  If Jesus demonstrated His love for us by dying for us before we even belonged to Him, then how should we treat those around us?

There are limits to this, of course, like I won’t attend an orgy of gluttony and/or sex just to show an unbeliever I care about him/her.  But I will come to his/her house at a time which is mutually benign because we are friends.  At the same time, those who betray the faith by continuing in unrepentant sin (and this knowingly), I am to have nothing to do with till they repent.  I know that sounds harsh, yet I can’t help but believe this was Jesus’ way of supporting the idea of refusing to enable someone’s destructive habits rather than punishing them.  In psychology denying someone support for their destructive lifestyle is considered wise.  Cutting them off completely is not good, though refusing to bring them into the inner circle where they might infect others with their bad habits is considered wisdom.

This is, of course, just a few examples of where the pattern comes into play.  As our understanding of the pattern grows, so does our practice of it.  God doesn’t hold against us when we can’t grow all at once.  If He did, none of us would be make the grade, quite frankly.  So if He doesn’t expect such an instantaneous change, neither should we.

The pattern Paul gave to the churches he established in Jesus’ name follows firm moral boundaries which include mercy, grace, rebuke, gentleness and a host of other positive traits.  We stick to morals not just because they are right (which they are) but because they are the essential ingredients to love.  We marry one person not because the Bible forbids multiple sexual partners but because this is the essence of love—it’s how we’re designed.  Understanding the reason for something strengthens the resolve of those who follow a teaching.  When we do so out of legalism, our moral stance becomes cold, calculated and harsh; when we do so out of love, our morals uplift, glorify and minister healing (minister here meaning “serve”).

Paul makes it abundantly clear only those who follow this pattern will stand in the end.