mirror or portrait?

we are currently studying through 1 Cor. 13 and before we got into the definition of love presented there, we had to deal with an all-important question: who is this text primarily about?  you or God?  in fact, this question should be asked and answered by every person about the whole Bible.  who is this book primarily about?  to use an illustration, do you see the Bible as primarily a mirror or a portrait?  many christians see the Word of God as being primarily a mirror to examine ourselves, to note and attempt to fix our shortcomings and faults.  but this understanding of the Bible will ultimately lead to despair, because we are focusing on our own wickedness.  and if we are in despair, we will never be transformed.  the effect (probably sub-conscious) is a growing resentment and distaste for reading the Word.  and with good reason!  who would want to spend large amounts of time standing in front of the mirror bemoaning all their faults and attempting to pop spiritual zits?  and though we may continue to do it out of a sense of duty or guilt, it will not transform us.

but if we see that the Bible is primarily a book about God, a portrait of His glory and beauty, the effect will be the opposite.  it will not lead to despair in ourselves but joy in God.  which in other words is worship.  the effect of this is that we will be transformed into His image, since Scripture says we always become like what we worship.  our attitude toward the Bible will also become one of growing desire and thirst for God's glory rather than resentment.  and conviction and transformation will come by way of contrast and thanksgiving, rather than by macabre navel-gazing.

now, the Bible does use the analogy of a mirror about itself in the book of James.  however, the comparison there is that a man who sees himself and goes away and forgets what he saw is like one who hears the Word and does not do it.  but though this "mirror" aspect does exist, it is not primary.  in fact, the Bible says in John 1 that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory... no one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son has revealed Him."  so we see in the nature of Jesus Himself, who is the Word of God, that His primary mission was to reveal the glory of God to us.  it should be no surprise then that the Bible, the written Word of God, has this very same, primary purpose.

how do you view the Bible: mirror or portrait?

kirk cameron, salvador dali, jrr tolkien and Jesus

it's possible that the mere combination of those names has left your head swimming and you're thinking "what in the world could they all have to do with each other?".  in a word: art.  in four words: the gospel and art.  i recently taught on the gospel and art and how the two relate to each other.  i'd like to suggest each of the first three men in the title as a paradigm for different approaches to art in light of the gospel.

first it's worth stating that there are basically two views in the world, two answers to the question: why art?

the first answer is the answer of modern western society, so proudly roared by the MGM lion (until he filed chapter 11 bankruptcy): ars gratis artis, or "art for art's sake".  the highest purpose in art, it is said, is self expression.  art should have no didactic purpose, no lessons or messages, lest it be decried as cheap propaganda.  this view looks at art through the lens of art and so folds in upon itself.  the abstractionist movement took this concept to new heights when things like a plain, black square, soup-cans, or an unmade bed were unabashedly paraded as masterpieces.  even classic aesthetics were not most important.  of course, the catch in this approach is that to say there is (and should not be) any didactic purpose in art is to engage in didactics: it is to say that the most important thing, the only acceptable goal in art, is the glorification of self. it is the absolutizing of the individual.  propaganda at it's best, i'd say.

the more classic answer to "why art?" was "for the sake of beauty."  as far back as aristotle, aesthetics were seen as something objective and as the purpose of art.  often aesthetic beauty was even tied to moral beauty.  this view attempted to look at the world through the lens of art.

each of these approaches encapsulates an important part of the light that the gospel sheds on art.  the story of the very first Artist and His very first masterpiece gives important insight into this question.  in Genesis, we read of God creating the universe with all of it's glorious stars and planets, trees and flowers, birds, fish, animals and the like.  God's refrain upon creating these things is a recognition that "it was good".  not "well, I think it's nice, but then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder."  we find in the very creation an undercurrent of a true and objective aesthetic value.  however, that is not the end of the story.  the great favor the abstractionists have done us (whether you like soup-cans or not), was to underscore the question: "and who gets to define beauty?"  as it turns out, there is only One who can: God.  the point that is thrown back in the face of modernism's classic aesthetics is that aristotle or da vinci have no more right to define beauty that malevich, warhol, or pollock.  they are absolutely right.  the abstractionists have removed man from his pedestal as the ultimate judge of beauty.  man never did belong there.  but God always has.  therefore the gospel approach to art on the one hand recognizes there is an objective beauty in the universe, of which God is the source and judge.  however, in humility we should also realize that no one person has the monopoly on that definition, just as no person can exhaustively define God, and therefore our approach should be to discover or strive for beauty in art, rather than arrogantly proclaim we've monopolized it (and bottled it up for sale in christian bookstores.)

but how should we as believers in Jesus "do art"?  the truth is that, despite the supposed aversion to didactic messages in art in modern society, no art lacks this element.  another (and far more aesthetic) way of saying this is: all art tells a story.  whether its a song, painting, dance, movie, book, etc.  so the question we are really asking when we say "how should we do art?" is "what story should we tell?"  as christians the answer to this should be obvious: the gospel.  the narrative of creation, fall, redemption, restoration through and for Jesus Christ.  (not that every work of art has to capture all of these aspects at once to be formed by the gospel.)  the question then is how do we tell the gospel in and through art?  i suggest there are 3 main ways that christians attempt this.  here's where we get back to the figures from the title who epitomize each approach:

1) kirk cameron: now, i watched growing pains in my childhood just like any 30-ish american.  but for the sake of illustration, i'd like to focus on a little series of "christian" movies called left behind in which cameron was the lead.  to continue the lens analogy, this approach is looking at the gospel through the lens of the world (not of art).  that is, in order to get our message across, we are willing to stoop to popular forms of art (usually movies more than anything).  we try to "copy" the world's forms to get unbelievers to hear our story.  this approach is, first of all, mercenary.  there is no real value in the art produced. rather, it is just a means to an end.  i'd argue that's not even a biblical approach.  when God made the first flowers, He didn't say "well, that'll be good one day if it leads someone to pray the sinner's prayer."  nope!  He said it is good in itself.  it has intrinsic value and worth as art, as a small reflection of God's own beauty and glory.  secondly, this approach produces bad art.  art is merely a means to another end, and so, because it is second priority, ends up being second rate (no offense to those of you who really think the left behind movies are flawless examples of cinematic mastery....  pfwhahaha!  sorry, that's too funny.  okay, honestly, i think you're nuts. :)  lastly, this approach rarely even accomplishes our mercenary goal, because the art produced is a) bad, so people who aren't being paid to go by their youth pastor are likely to skip it and b) blatant (notice that these kinds of movies almost always have someone uber-schmaltzy sharing the sinner's prayer with an open Bible or something to that effect), so an unbeliever who does wander in is doubly turned off (by bad art and blatant "propagandizing".)

2) savador dali:  dali was a surrealist artist in 20th century spain.  though he was raised catholic, he was, as far as we know, not a christian.  however, he did not escape his upbringings as, at the very least, themes in some of his art.  one of my favorite paintings of his is corpus hypercubus (pictured at the top of this post).  the second paradigm, illustrated in this painting, can be described as looking at the gospel through the lens of art.  in this approach the gospel is blatantly the subject, but it's different from the first approach, in that the art itself is valued and actually adds something to the presentation of the gospel.  dali's painting shows Christ on the cross, yet the cross is unusual.  it is actually a three-dimensional representation of a hypercube, a four-dimensional figure.  in using this figure as the cross, the statement is that the death of Christ transcends human understanding.  all art in this second category could be considered "devotional art."  but when this kind of art is done well, it draws unbelievers much more than the first approach.  for something to be good christian art, it first has to be good art.  any art which is intended to be used for devotional purposes should most likely be done in this second approach (hymns, illustrated bibles, etc.)  interestingly, catholics, orthodox and anglicans (and sometimes non-believers) tend to be better at this approach than many evangelicals.  perhaps it is because they have a continued tradition of devotional art, where we as evangelicals (and our predecessors) have taken iconoclasm to an extreme and rid ourselves of artistic appreciation and ability all together.

3) jrr tolkien: if you don't know by now, i will tell you: the lord of the rings is by far my favorite fiction book ever.  tolkien was a devout christian (catholic) who actually led cs lewis to Christ.  tolkien used a very different method than the first approach in his creative writing.  rather than looking at the gospel, he used the gospel as his lens to look at the world.  tolkien was fascinated by languages, mythology, ancient culture and in writing his masterpiece, choose to look at that part of the world that interested him through the lens of the gospel.  it is no coincidence that the lord of the rings is the best selling single fiction story of all time (after a tale of two cities).  a little investigation shows how the story echoes the gospel:  aragorn, the peasant king, rises from humble obscurity to be the king of the whole realm.  gandalf, the human who is more than human, fights a demon, falling into the abyss and at last defeats him on the mountain top.  in the fight he loses his life, but it brought back to life as a glorified gandalf.  the whole story echoes the gospel, which is why people are so drawn to it.  it is subtle and so doesn't push away non-christians.  it is great art and so reflects the glory of God.  the art, therefore, that has the most potential to reach the hearts of people who do not know Christ is when we look at the world through the lens of the gospel, make great art to the glory of God and allow Him to use those hints of the Great Story in our art to draw many to Himself.

i'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, especially if you are an artist of some form yourself.

(btw, an audio version of this teaching is available in russian here.)

how to make an idol (and how to destroy it)

there's lots of things i've wanted to write on lately, but just not had the time.  in our sunday services we've been studying 1 Corintians for a while now.  recently we studied chapter 10:1-14 where Paul lays out for the Corinthians the topic of idolatry.  we had a lot of feedback and real heart-searching on this topic in our home fellowship discussions so i thought i'd post the main thoughts from the sermon here:

Paul begins the section by drawing a parallel between the nation of Israel and the Church.  figuratively speaking, Israel also had a baptism both in water and Spirit.  they, too, partook of bread and drink as a form of unity with God.  Paul goes to the trouble to make the analogy lest we miss the point: Israel was no less God's covenant people than the Church and nevertheless they entered into idolatry which led to death.

the Corinthians, like us, were probably inclined to think, "of course i'm not an idolator, i recognize that Jesus is Lord, i'm baptized, take communion, etc.".  Paul's point is, "so did Israel but it didn't make them immune from idolatry".  The fact is that idolatry doesn't mean theoretically pronouncing you have settled on a new favorite deity.  As the Israelites did, we might acknowledge the true God the whole time, but when it gets down to how we live we run after idols.  idolatry is putting anything or anyone in the place Jesus should have in your life.  it is, despite what you claim to be the case theoretically, turning functionally to something else as your savior.  much of what you make your functional savior has to do with how you define your personal hell.  if being alone is hell to you, you're likely to make relationships (romantic or otherwise) into your savior.  if your hell is being seen as worthless, your savior might be achievement, be it professional, academic, etc.  it is fair to say that the essence of any sin is idolatry.  martin luther implied this when he said that if we humans would keep the first two commandments, love God and avoid idols, we'd never break the other commandments.

in every sin there is a false god and a false promise.  for example, in fornication that god is sex and the promise might be "you'll feel loved, accepted when you give yourself to these people".  if it's drunkenness, the false god is alcohol, and the promise is "come unto me, you who labor and are burdened, and i'll give you rest."  sins don't "just happen" or "the devil made me do it".  to be sure he plays his role as tempter, but there is something in us that buys the lie before we enter sin.  without identifying that, "just don't do it" will most likely be small comfort and smaller help when we continue to be drawn back to the same mudhole. 

it is important to deal with not just the action but the lie and the false god offering itself as a solution if we truly desire to be free of that sin.  it's worth mentioning as well there are often multiple layers of idols.  i'll use an example of a man i know who has now recognized this pattern in his life.  this man is a binge drinker.  he would get clean, stay clean for a few months and go right back at it.  he went through an extensive rehab program and within 5 months of finishing, was in the next binge.  at the latest episode, after he got off the binge, i went to see him and asked him what it was that kept drawing him back to getting drunk.  what was the lie?  his answer: "to escape".  escape what?  the conversation revealed that he had been fleeing a sense of frustration, even depression, because he wasn't able to make as much money as he longed for at his job and not able to significantly increase his material status.  this is a perfect example of dual-layered idolatry: on the surface, the man's idol is getting drunk, escaping.  but the deeper truth is that he had put material prosperity in the role of savior in his life.  when that false god let him down (mammon is a cruel idol), the next false god, alcohol, popped up offering consolation by getting smashed.  we need to be aware not only of the idol in any given sin, but also the possibility of that idol as a consolation after disappointment from the first.  without realizing and repenting of the root idol, that man might get clean of alcohol but will always come back (or find a new consolation).

but if the root of sin is idolatry, the root of idolatry is lust.  Paul mentions this in the passage, "let us not lust as they did".  lust is not merely sexual desire.  the greek word in the NT literally means to pant after, to long for.  it is lust, ultimate desire that turns a thing into an idol.  what we must see is that the things we make into idols are in themselves good.  sex is good, created by God for enjoyment and intimacy in marriage.  but when made a god, it rips hearts and lives apart.  wine is a blessing of God (as the OT often talks about), Jesus himself used it as a symbol of blessing in His first miracle.  but when it's put in the role of a god, it breaks apart families, stability and everything good.  cs lewis writes "they are all in themselves good, but when lifted to the level of a god, they become demons."  idolatry takes a blessing of God and puts it in place of God, which turns that blessing into a curse.

now, Paul lists 4 stories from the desert wanderings of Israel in this section to show us ways that idolatry begins and how it leads to death.

1) the first story mentioned is that of the golden calf.  Moses had gone up on the mountain of Sinai to receive the Law.  after some time the people grew impatient and demanded that Aaron make them a god.  Aaron makes the golden calf and the people being to have a drunken, gluttonous orgy in front of it.  Moses comes down and stops their wickedness.  as a result 3,000 people die.

the first path Paul points out to idolatry is impatience.  the fascinating thing about the story of the golden calf is that Aaron told them "this is the Lord who brought you out of Egypt."  they had convinced themselves that this was the real God, though in reality they had created a false god of convenience because they weren't willing to wait.  too often we allow our own impatience to lead us into idolatry.  we make a decision based on our own logic and impatience, rather than waiting for God.  the worst part is we then convince ourselves that this is "God's will", when somewhere deep down we know it's not.

2) the second story Paul mentions is when Balak, king of Moab, sent the women of Moab to the Israelite camp to sexually entice the men of Israel and through their fornication to worship the false god Baal.  the Israelites fall for it and as a result a plague breaks out that kills 24,000 people.

in this case, the road into idolatry Paul brings out is loneliness and the false god is human relationship (in this case sexual, though not always.)  because we are empty and haven't allowed Jesus to meet our deepest heart-needs, we turn to people to seek the love, intimacy, close communion we lack and end up with a false god.  often that false god is a romantic/sexual relationship, though possibly it might be seeking to be loved by many people (popularity).

3) the third story is when the Israelites made a long journey and grew weary on the way.  they began to complain against God and that He brought them out of Egypt at all.  God sends fiery snakes among the people and many of them die before the plague is stopped.

in this case, the road to idolatry is through discouragement.  they were facing a difficult time and allowed that to create bitter resentment in their hearts.  in this story, there is no visible idol the Israelites are worshiping as a result, but it is idolatry nonetheless.  in their complaining, as with any complaining, there is an implication: "i deserve better."  their idol was their own self-righteousness, expressed in complaining.  when we allow a trial to cause us to complain against God, we are implying that we deserve better, when in reality the only thing we deserve is eternity in hell.  we know too well how easy it is to allow a trial, some discouraging situation to be the door to complaining.  what we need to realize is that this is a door to worshiping our own worth.

4) the final story is the story of Korah and his rebellion against Moses.  Korah thought that Moses and Aaron had too much power and wanted a slice of the action.  his statement was "aren't we all holy to the Lord?"  God destroys Korah and the small group that rebelled with him, causing the ground to split and swallow them alive.  rather than fear and repent, the people of Israel the next day accuse Moses of killing God's chosen people.  a plague breaks forth and 14,700 people die before it stops.

the final road to idolatry here is independence from God's authority; rebellion.  this is perhaps the most deceptive path because it sounds really spiritual to say "i don't want to follow any man, but God alone."  well, that sounds spiritual, but if God has told you to follow someone's leadership in a given area and you don't, it's not spiritual, but proud.  we can at times allow our love of independence and autonomy to lead us into the idolatry of worshiping our own pride.  we lie to ourselves and convince ourselves we're being spiritual, but really we're being rebellious.  (there are plenty of caveats here like if the given authority is contradicting God's Word, or if they are attempting to lead outside of their sphere of proper authority, then rebellion is actually something God might rightly call us to.)  but the point being that we allow a pseudo-spirituality that thinks we need no one to lead us to the idolatry of our own pride.

so what do we do with all this?  are we just doomed to be "perpetual idol factories" as John Calvin put it?  no.  there is hope.  in each of these stories, the plague and death that came as a result of idolatry didn't stop on it's own.  in the golden calf incident, Moses went to pray for the people, saying, "if You do not pardon them, blot my name out of Your book as well."  in the case of the Moabite women, when a man and woman had come to commit fornication right in the tabernacle, Aaron's son took a spear and thrust it through the two, putting an end to the plague.  in the case of the snakes, God directed Moses to make a brass serpent, lift it up on a pole and all the Israelites who look on it would be healed.  in the rebellion of Korah, Scripture says that Aaron took the censer with incense and stood between the dead and the living and so stopped the plague.

each of these stories ends with a picture of Jesus.  not only did Christ in response to the death we brought through our idolatry pray "blot Me out.", He was blotted out of the book of life, the book of God's favor on the Cross.  He did not pierce those who were guilty with a spear, but was Himself pierced with spear and nails, the One who was innocent, to stop the plague of our idolatry.  He literally came between the dead and the living in dying and rising again.  and, as He Himself prophesied of His own death, that as Moses lifted up the brass serpent in the wilderness, so He would be lifted up.  brass was a symbol of judgment, the serpent a picture of evil and sin.  Christ was lifted up on the Cross and bore the judgment, became sin for us, that we might be freed, healed from the death of our idolatry.  the answer to overcoming the idols in our lives is to see this amazing Savior, the one true Savior.  not merely to know the story, but to believe that He has done everything already to set us free.  to be so enraptured with the beauty of such a Savior as this, that our hearts are satisfied in Him and seek no second-rate substitutes.

i didn't actually intend this to be a transcript of the sermon, though it more or less came out that way.  so for those of you who don't speak russian (which it was taught and recorded in), now you have a chance to hear it.  if this strikes a chord with you or perhaps reveals some new things about your heart, or you just have a question on something here, please feel free to comment.  have you allowed one of these roads to lead you to idolatry?

social media detox

so this last week i took a complete break from any and all forms of social media (facebook, twitter, blogs, etc.)  there were a number of reasons i felt like i needed this detox, one of which is a seriously disturbing new york times article on how social media affects your ability to focus.  another was a documentary i watched about some effects of constantly being connected, but ultimately i just wanted to unplug.  after a week w/ no social media i came to a few conclusions:

1. experience lines up with research from the article: social media really does mess with your ability to focus.  i found myself at the beginning of the week randomly wanting to check in during studying or some other task i was doing.  by the end of the week i was already much more single-track and able to stay focused without that random impulse to check a billion different snippets of whatever (the previously linked NYT article explains how social media can actually create a chemical addiction in the brain).  this probably ought to seriously trouble anyone who is concerned with productivity in themselves or their employees.

2. NO ONE uses email anymore for personal interaction.  seriously.  i think its only use is for business these days.  upon reflection, i find this to be somewhat troubling, but not because i'm old school and think the newspaper or printed books or the postal system should never be trumped by e-formats (though i really do think there's something different about holding a book in your hands. call me sentimental. :)  i think what it says is we are losing the art of communication.  we try to trump quality and depth with volume (always a bad philosophy in my view).  it is a rare skill to fit anything meaningful into 140 characters.  i also believe the way we present ourselves is different when we think "the collective web-consciousness" is watching than we do in a real, personal interaction with one or a few people.  this inevitably leads to a degree of superficiality (that hopefully does not take over how we relate in general).  i wrote a lengthy blog post on this idea a couple years ago (back when facebook had less than 100 million users if you can imagine that! :)  you can find it here. (however, social media is very effective and time-saving.  then again, so is a microwave, but i question the side-effects both might cause with over-exposure.)

3. most of what gets posted on facebook or twitter is, well, trivial at best. :)  no offense to anyone.  i post as much as the next guy.  but seriously, read through a couple scrolls of your facebook homepage or twitter feed and ask yourself what that really added to your day.  i'm guessing the majority (not all) of the time the answer is "not much".

4. detox is a good thing.  i do not plan to quit using any of the forms of social media i'm plugged into.  it is very convenient and like i said, no one uses email anymore.  plus i use it to get church info/resources out.  however, i think i'll probably continue to have occasional detoxes so as not to be over-exposed to the social-media-radiation that is the 21st century.  if you can't remember the last day you didn't check facebook, twitter, your blog feed, etc. that may be a good sign it's time for a break.  seriously, take a day, two, a week, whatever and just unplug.  read, pray, enjoy real communication with living people.  you'll be glad you did.

you might be a pharisee if

i've been reading through the gospel of matthew lately and recently came to chapter 23.  this chapter always blows me away and challenges me each time i read it.  it's the chapter where Jesus goes off full-force on the pharisees and "woes" them in one of the most passionate and what must've been emotion-filled moments in His earthly ministry.  i thought i'd take the "woes" and put them into a list form (how pharisaic of me :) and re-phrase them to a more modern context as a way to allow the Holy Spirit to challenge the pharisee that dwells in all of us.  so, you might be a pharisee if:

1. you consider yourself a spiritual authority qualified to dictate to others. you see yourself as the mediator between God and men.
2. you talk a lot about God but do not live it out.
3. you like to tell others what God expects them to do but aren't willing to do it yourself.
4. you do your religion so that others will see you and praise you.
5. your spirituality is defined by external things (think bumper stickers, keychains and other Jesus-paraphernalia, christian radio on the pre-set buttons, etc.) rather than by inward reality of relationship with God and love of others.
6. you come to church to be seen there by others rather than to meet with Jesus.
7. you crave recognition from people for whatever ministry you might be doing.
8. you really love whatever title it is you have in the church and want people to use it as much as possible. (i.e., "Pastor" is now your new first name).
9. you present Christianity as an exclusive club rather than open to anyone. people who are not in your clique can't come in: people who don't dress like you, talk like you, vote like you, etc. can't really be "good Christians".
10. your religion hasn't made you any more compassionate or generous toward the needy/broken.
11. you pray long and sing worship loud because others are listening, not because God is listening.
12. when someone new comes into the church, rather than rejoice for God's grace, you set about to "fix" him.  you burden him will all of your legalism and turn him into a graceless, obnoxious zealot (like yourself).
13. you have falsely dichotomized your life into spiritual/secular categories.  you relegate God to a certain corner of your life, not seeking to know Him in all of life.
14. you are strict and hung up on the little external matters of obedience (smoking is the unpardonable sin, your movie collection would be approved by mickey mouse and your vocabulary sounds suspiciously like ned flanders') but you are completely content with your own greed, lack of grace to others, indifference towards those who are suffering, and pride and contempt in your heart towards anyone who doesn't follow your rules.
15. you are very careful to hide your self-indulgence under a thick layer of looking holy.  as long as you can schmooze at church with the right people, you think you're getting away with it. (you're not.)
16. you compare yourself to people in much harder situations than yourself (divorced, single-parent, unemployed, abused, recovering addict, poor, etc.) and look down on them and tell yourself you'd do better in their shoes, though you've never been in them.
17. lastly, you might be a pharisee if anything on this list made you mad. :)

happy repenting!

the Holy Spirit's cross

 

[this post has been revised from the original version for greater clarity]

... is me.  (before you get out the heresy sticks to beat me with, a) it’s an illustration and b) read the whole explanation :)  i've recently been praying over some challenging ideas from In the Name of Jesus (which if you have not read, it's a must).  the Lord has been convicting me on a lot of things through this.  one of these is how i often allow deep and intimate prayer to slip between the cracks of a thousand other things i think i have to do, the majority of which are completely unnecessary and none of which are more important than He whom i sacrifice for them.  as i have reflected on and been challenged concerning the source of my ministry, the source of my identity, there was a phrase from the book that struck me, "my lack of contemplative prayer... was a sign that the Spirit was being suppressed."

"how exactly could i be capable of suppressing the Spirit?" i thought.  as i considered the Cross, it all became clear (as usually happens when we focus on the Cross).  when Christ was on the Cross, His greatest suffering was not physical.  there has been many a sermon on the much deeper spiritual anguish Christ endured beyond His bodily wounds.  sometimes this is posed in a strictly individual sense: that Christ, the sinless Lamb of God suffered the spiritual anguish of becoming sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21).  while that's true, the Gospels themselves paint a slightly different picture of the source of His anguish.  they record that right before His death, Jesus cries out, literally screaming while He’s suffocating "my God, my God, why have You forsaken Me!?"  what rent Jesus' heart, what caused Him such agony that He is screaming with His dying breath were not the nails, or crown of thorns, but His separation from His Father.  it was nothing less than the rending of the eternal unity and fellowship of the Godhead.  it's something we will never be able to fully comprehend in this life or the next.

but here’s where we come in.  God has put His Holy Spirit in us.  the third person of the Trinity has taken up permanent residence in those of us who believe in Christ.  this is, in some sense, another incarnation of God.  (put those sticks down and let me finish! :)  obviously not that Christians become God in any sense (sorry, mormons), but that God is now dwelling "in the flesh"; as Scripture says, our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 6:19)  now, i think because we as Christians are so familiar with the idea of the Spirit of God living inside us, we don’t really contemplate what that means.  i believe this relates especially to prayer.  we typically see prayer as being a sort of point-A-to-B communication from us to God (or both directions if we’re really spiritual. :)  however, we forget that the desire and ability to commune with God is obviously not from our own selves originally, but from the Spirit of God in us (as “no good thing dwells in our flesh”).  prayer, if truly inspired and begun by the Spirit of God in us, may be said then to be not merely A-to-B (us to God), but A-B-C, from the Holy Spirit through us to the Godhead.  for the sake of not writing out a whole phrase to explain it each time, I’ll call this “A-B-C” communication: “transcommunion” (copyright! :) - that is, the Spirit of God communing with the Father and Son through (trans-) us.
 
how does all this tie together?  in this: similar to how the Incarnation of Jesus placed Him in a position where He could be cut off from the Father, so in the Spirit's indwelling of us, God has opened Himself up to another breaking of His fellowship; specifically the breaking of the Holy Spirit’s transcommunion in us with the Godhead.  the Bible says that we as believers in Christ are capable of "grieving" or "quenching" the Spirit.  but what does that mean?  i figure it's like this: the greatest joy and delight God has is His own glory, enjoyed eternally among the members of the Trinity.  when Christ was incarnated, He was cut off from that eternal bliss because of our sin and experienced the anguish of separation at the Cross.  now God dwells "in flesh" again; the flesh of those who believe in Jesus.  but sadly we once more subject God to deep grief in hindering His fellowship through us by our sin.  the Spirit in us, who longs above all things to enjoy unity with the Father and Son, is kept, as it were, at a distance from the transcommunion He desires with the Godhead by our lack of prayer, by our decision that our work, our comfort, our games, our glory are more important than His divine fellowship.  it's a sick irony.  our self-seeking and neglect of God was the cause of that awful rupture in the Trinity at the Cross.  now our same selfishness causes a break in His transcommunion because through prayerlessness we deny the indwelling Spirit the intimacy He desires to have through us with the Godhead.  we cut off our own fellowship with God and so we cut off the Spirit's who dwells in us.  in that sense, we become a "cross" to the Holy Spirit in breaking His fellowship through us with the Lord.  to use the biblical phrase, we "grieve" the Spirit in us.

you may or may not be squirming as you read this now (though i hope you are :).  the fact is, it makes us uncomfortable to think that we could have this kind of effect on the Godhead.  we like to think that He is completely impervious and unaffected by our neglect of Him.  though in no sense does He depend on us or "need" us, yet He has chosen of His own will to make Himself vulnerable to us.  He has willingly linked His own being with those of us who have received Christ, even so much as to be in us.  but maybe this thought of our hindering the fellowship of the Godhead* is uncomfortable for us most of all because we like to think that our prayerlessness doesn't really affect anyone except maybe ourselves (and even that we try to talk ourselves out of).  when we choose to neglect intimate fellowship with God we tell ourselves, "well, i might be a little less chipper today, but i'll manage."  but the truth is it’s not merely an issue of “i’m not in the mood to pray.  i can get by without it.”  this would be a logical statement (though not an accurate one) if prayer were strictly A-to-B.  but when we realize that it’s primarily the Holy Spirit in us who desires that communion with the Father and Son and who is prompting us to pray, then this statement becomes out of place, irrelevant, absurd.   the question then becomes, “if the Holy Spirit has taken up residence in me and desires above all to enjoy fellowship among the Godhead, and that through me, who am i to stand in the way?”  the truth is that not only do we affect ourselves negatively when we neglect fellowship with God, we affect everyone around us negatively (and i don't just mean with a bad mood, but by stopping our ears to the ways the Spirit would want to use us to bless others that day).  what is most unsettling though is to realize that not only do we affect others by our lack of intimacy with God, but that we grievously affect God Himself.  He has put His Spirit in us so that He may draw us into the glorious fellowship of the Trinity, not so we can be the roadblock in His transcommunion.  i know it's something i am guilty of and am glad that God is convicting me of it so that i can repent and allow His Spirit  to rejoice through me in the fellowship of the Godhead; a decision i am glad i make each time i do. 

"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?  For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's."
- 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

[ * footnote/disclaimer: i am not implying that we as individuals or even as the corporate church as a whole are capable of "stopping" God's fellowship among Himself.  this complete rupture happened once at the Cross and never again.  the Spirit, however, is grieved over the loss of fellowship through us with the Godhead.  this loss of “transcommunion” is on a subjective and personal level as concerns us.  this does not equate to the Spirit being deprived of union with the Godhead on an objective and complete level, in as much as the Holy Spirit is not bound exclusively in the Church in the same way that Christ was bound in His body at the Incarnation.]

serving the city

this ukrainian independence day (august 24th) we continued the tradition we began last year of a church picnic / beach clean-up day.  our desire in doing this is to "seek the good of the city" (Jer. 29:7) and to show people the love of God in a very tangible way.  we believe that such community service is a vital part of reaching the city for Christ.  we have also been going out this summer and doing street witnessing every week, but the fact is that those whose hearts are not yet open to the gospel, though it is the greatest "good" we could do them to share Jesus with them, do not yet perceive it as such.  in taking on projects to practically do good on a level people who are not yet saved can recognize, we are able to show them the love and care of God in a way they can understand it.  since in ukraine there is really no concept of "littering" or "pack it in, pack it out", the parks and beaches all look about like this:

after a little of this...

(and by little i mean over 1,000 gallons (4,000 liters) of trash collected...)
the beach looked like this:

we had quite a number of people stop us and say, "this is great!  i wish everyone cared about our city like this.  why are you doing this?"  we were able to answer them simply "because Jesus loves this city and we love Him."  a few of the responses were ones of shock: "really!?  you guys are from a CHURCH!?  that's the kind of church i'd visit."  our desire is to take on other community improvement projects as God leads us and resources allow.  one thing we've had on our hearts for a long time is to repair some of the dilapidated playgrounds around the city and in so doing serve the mothers and young children that play there.  please pray with us that these seeds of simple service would grow in people's hearts to the glory of God.

eco-indulgences

on my very long flight back from america, i couldn't help but notice an ad for the next stage in development of earth worship.  now delta has teamed up with the nature conservancy to add a "purchase carbon offset" option when you buy your airline ticket.  what this works out to being is essentially an "indulgence": you know you are about to commit transgression by jet fuel in purchasing an airline ticket, however, in order to placate your guilty conscience and appease the wrath of mother earth against you for such a heinous crime, you can now purchase ahead of time a "carbon offset", or as i like to call it, an "eco-indulgence". (copyright! :)  of course, just as the indulgences of the popes were really just excuses to line their pockets and licenses for people to sin, i can't see how buying a "carbon offset" is much more than an excuse to continue polluting "guilt free" and i can't help but wonder who's pockets are getting "greener" off the green guilt-trip.  i'm all for being a good and responsible steward of the creation God has entrusted to us (for a fascinating, Biblical basis and approach for being "green", listen to this.)  but the avatar-esque, can't-breathe-without-feeling-guilty-for-your-carbon-output mindset has led to a very interesting brand of religion.... and like any religion has led to its own brand of self-righteousness.  and in this case, i guess righteousness is for sale.

ukraine is a land like no other (except maybe russia :)

from time to time as i walk around the experience that is my life in ukraine, i run into things that i realize are very bizarre to people who are not from here.  since i've been living here for over 8 years now, i have to force myself to remember that these things strike most foreigners as very odd, since i have just come to accept most of them (granted, not all of them).  so for your education and amusement purposes, just a few pictures from the last month or so:

this picture probably doesn't explain itself well unless you've seen one before.  for those not familiar with ukrainian ritual, this is a funeral.  you'll notice that the crowd is gathered right outside the apt. building.  no, this is not a wake.  the body is in the coffin right there next to the stairwell (didn't get a close-up out of respect for the friends and family of the deceased).  the colorful bars off to the left are the playground equipment (abby was swinging on an incredibly squeaky swing before we made her stop so as not to provoke the ire of the crowd).  the most interesting part about this is if you live in the stairwell where the person died, you get to walk right up to and past the coffin with bags full of groceries as babuska's cry over their loved one.  this might all seem very tasteless, but i have to say i prefer it.  death here is not tucked away and denied the way it is in america (or i imagine western europe?).  it's right there in your face (outside your kitchen window, actually) ... a reality to be reckoned with.  it is not disguised and sanitized:  no funeral homes, no formaldehyde (hence same or next day burials) and a simple pine box. 

on a similar note: the morgue.  (don't ask me why i was there). 

these are shots of our local morgue.  the first shot shows that in the waiting hall, there is a typewriter from i'd guess about 40+ years ago.  i'm not sure if they're keeping it around until it attains "antique status" and then hock it to provide for a lock on the door to the "dissection hall" (seriously, there wasn't one.  just a sign that said "no entrance without permission!").  or maybe it's just a statement that the typewriter itself has met it's end.  ah, modern art... nah, probably the first option.

the second picture is a soviet style plaque of a woman weeping over the grave of a loved one.  the great part is that these metal figures are nailed onto the door of an old wardrobe.  you can still see the old hinges at the top.  nothing says "our condolences" like dismantled furniture.

next, a sign on the doctor's office door:

the working hours of the doctor in this particular section of the hospital are from 8:00 until 14:36.  yes, that's right, 14:36 (2:36pm).  the funny part is i'm willing to bet he never sticks around that late anyway. 

the last picture would be the funniest if it weren't real.  below is the sign that you see as soon as you step onto the property of a certain church here in ukraine:

i

for those who don't read russian, it says: "we do not allow: smoking, drinking alcoholic beverages, improper language, walking on the grass, picking flowers, walking dogs, leaving trash."  seriously, is that really the first statement you want to make to visitors?  if i were not a Christian, i'd turn around before i ever hit the door (i'm a pastor and i almost turned around anyway).  sadly, this sign typifies the attitude and bent of the majority of churches in ukraine; in a word, rules (and mostly petty ones at that).  it's all about what you cannot do, about ridiculous codes, and little to do with the heart of Jesus.  the sad part of course is that this is the way a lot of Christians present themselves to the world (not just in ukraine either) and the way a lot of non-Christians perceive the church (ned flanders, anyone?).  the fact is a lot of "Christians" have no idea who Christ really is (and pass their ignorance on to non-Christians).  i bet if they let Jesus make the sign at that church, it would say something more along the lines of, "we do not allow: self-righteousness, arrogance, gossip, walking on people, picking fights, barking at others, and trashing your neighbor."  the more Christians i meet here, the more convinced i am how desperately this country needs to hear the Gospel of Grace: that Jesus didn't come to make more Pharisees, but to rebuke them, and to make lovers of God instead.

four principles for christian unity

(if you're confused as to why there is a picture of bacon here, a) keep reading but b) why not!? :)

a few weeks back, we went through Romans 14:20-24 and looked at how to deal with your convictions and those of other believers.  i thought i'd share the principles from that passage on how to rightly hold and use your personal convictions as a Christian and how to treat another person in his convictions:

1) "all things indeed are pure."  in other words, if the Bible doesn't say something is sin, you can't universally define it as sin.  if the Bible is silent on a particular issue, or gives freedom, or doesn't set forth a specific stance, then no Christian (no matter how insightful he thinks he is) has the right to declare it as sin for all people.  there are plenty of things the Bible does say are sin, and pride is one of the most often repeated.  as soon as you take any of your personal convictions and try to force it on others, you have become a proud pharisee.  this includes areas like drinking alcohol, birth control, watching harry potter, eating bacon, playing cards, listening to secular music, using electricity (thanks amish! ... and no, i'm not worried about offending them.  they shouldn't be using the internet anyway. :), etc.

2) "whatever is not from faith is sin."  if you are personally convinced God doesn't want you to do something which the Bible is silent on, don't do it.  for you it would be sin!  the reason it would be sin is not cause the thing/action itself is wrong, but because, in as far as you are convinced, it would be disobedience to God, and that is sin.  keep your convictions.  live by them.  just don't force them on others because then you'll have a much bigger problem than eating bacon and watching harry potter. 

3) "it is good not to do anything by which your brother stumbles."  that is, if the option is between using your freedom to do what you want and serving your brother, go with the later.  we are given great freedom in Christ, not so we can do what we want, but so that in surrendering it for others, we may become more like Him.  the Cross of Jesus proves without a doubt that serving others is more important than standing on your rights.  but does that mean we have to stop drinking coffee, eating bacon, watching TV and using electricity just cause it might stumble someone?

4) "do you have faith?  have it to yourself before God."  to serve others with our freedom doesn't mean that we become as strict as they are.  it does mean that we use our freedom with discretion and readiness to surrender it for others.  the principle is not "if this might stumble someone somewhere, i shouldn't do it."  love doesn't exist in "theory", only in practice.  the principle is: "if this does stumble the person i'm with right now, then in his presence i will refrain."  use your freedom in places and ways it won't stumble others (at the least just before God... it won't stumble Him if you eat bacon. :)  does this mean we stop using freedom all together?  no.  does it mean we surrender it for the good of those who are stumbled by it?  yes.

if Christians would all apply these simple Scriptural principles, there would be a lot less petty fighting and contentions among the body of Christ. 

one disclaimer should be mentioned at this point:  if a person is attempting to set up their own convictions as law for others (which really means they are trying to set themselves up as god), we should contradict and break their convictions boldly.  if they are contradicting the will of God through their man-made convictions, we should ignore them.  Jesus often practiced this when the pharisees attempted to thwart the work and will of God by their extra-biblical convictions.  Jesus' response was to boldly contradict them and continue anyway with the work His Father was doing.

well, hope that was beneficial for someone out there.  feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.