An Answer to the Moral Dihlemma of Theism

Let's say you're omnipotent, and you want to make a clock. There are two ways to do it:

The first way would be to create a dial with hands that always point in the right direction in response to the actual time. The big hand would move around the dial once every hour, always landing on the twelve at the exact moment the little hand arrives at whatever o’clock it is, simply because you commanded it to. You could either command it to follow that pattern for all eternity, or else you could dedicate one small part of your infinite mind to physically moving it according to that pattern. There would be nothing of what we call clockworks inside, just a giant cosmic miracle dial responding to your decree on its own.

The second way would be to build it with all the wheels inside meshing together, timed by the flywheel, driven by the power-source, working with utmost precision, insuring that the hands point to the right numbers on the dial at the right time of the cosmic time progression. Any addition you made later on would be powered by and in sync with the existing clockworks. It would be designed to work all on its own without any effort from you - except you could add an input device whereby you could make any corrections, such as, “increase speed by one millionth of a second”. We'll talk more about this input device later.

From reviewing all the evidence, both from science and from scripture, I'd have to conclude that a certain Omnipotent being that we know, chose the second of the two ways, the “clockworks” model when creating this universe. A lot of folk religion does seem to favour the “miracle dial” method, as well as, perhaps a few early scientific models. However, even early scientists as Aristotle and others leaned in the direction of a clockworks type of universe.

How does science point to a clockworks model? There are the four forces (that we know of), gravitational, electromagnetic, the strong and the weak; and we now know that atoms consist of dozens of types of particles, each rendering possible, various facets of our existence, including life.

Though we've always taken it for granted, actual life integrated with physical substance isn't an easy thing to come by. We know that rocks can't be living. Minerals can't hold life, nor can any other elements or simple compounds - although we now have very complex electronic circuitry with the right programming to make it act like it's alive (isn't that right, Alexa? “Yes, that's right”). But only the extremely elaborate intricate structure of the DNA molecule can actually hold life. We still don't know how it works, nor how to recreate it. All we can do is grow it from existing DNA.

When God said, “Let there be light,” the big bang occurred at just the right intensity to divide that initial microscopic speck into a humongous mass of photons, all at the right density to enable the formation of atoms of every size and type - the clockworks that would eventually enable life. Had that big bang been even the slightest bit more intense, physicists tell us, all that would have been enabled would have been hydrogen atoms. Life could never come about. Anything ever so slightly less intense and the universe as we know it would, again, not have been possible.

Even at the right intensity, the time still had to be right. The Omnipotent Being said, “let light be separated from darkness.” Ripples appeared on the outward flowing stream of light, and gravitational and magnetic forces began to go to work at pulling it together to form galaxies and stars. The nuclear reactions within each star formed the various particles into atoms, splitting them again, completely dissolving them and remaking them into atoms again, while some that had spun off beyond the outer periphery formed into planets. When at least one planet had cooled sufficiently, God said, “Let the water be separated from dry land, and let an atmosphere appear.” Only then, was life even possible. We are living in what is called, “The Goldilocks Zone” where it is, like junior Bear's porridge, “Just right!”

So, how much time passed between these events that led to it being “just right” for life of any sort to make its appearance? Some say billions of years, others say only a few days. The thing about such intense gravitational force as was present at the big bang, is that it greatly speeds up time, so the first couple of aeons could have been a couple of days. To God, it doesn't make any difference anyhow, as a day and a thousand years (or a billion, as far as that goes) are all the same. It was all a part of fixing the clockworks to accommodate life, and setting up that relatively short Goldilocks zone where humanity could live and roam, and fulfil his destiny.

There is reason to believe that the seventh day of creation was much longer than twenty four hours. According to Hebrews 4:3-11 we are still in the seventh day. God has been resting, and it remains for some of us to enter that rest.

So, God told man on the sixth day, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and every living creature that crawls on the earth.” God gave His creation over to humanity for safekeeping, set His alarm clock, and rested.

Well okay, He's not exactly sleeping. Remember, there's that input device whereby He can make adjustments, and that is through interaction with humanity, to whom He gave the authority to manage things. That input device is, in fact, the life that He breathed into man that brought him to life. So, humanity is both a product of the grand universal clockworks that God had spent so much time designing and developing, and alive with the breath of God Himself. Where other creatures are simply products of the clockworks, and therefore subject to determinism, humanIty is above that and is capable of true creativity, making decisions that can't be predicted by knowing all the maths. So, humanity, created in God's own image, holding God's life in his DNA, both belongs in the physical universe that produced that DNA, and transcends it. He is a higher order of being, meant to be God's own friend. That's who God gave the authority over His creation.

But we also know that the first couple of humans blew it, creating a Mess (with a capital M) that all humans coming after would have to live with, so God has been making heavy use of the input device.

Everyone is affected by The Mess, some more than others, and in different ways, prompting many to say, ‘It just isn't fair!” There's nothing about The Mess that's fair. People are enslaved, bullied, tortured, slaughtered, bereaved, left destitute, while others reap the benefits, living high off other people's suffering; all because of how human nature has been skewed.

Early humans took on board something that they were told not to, and that gave us an acute sense of good and evil. On the surface that sounds good, but look closer. What it was, was an obsession to compare everything. The first humans looked at each other and then at themselves and said, “Your body is beautiful, but mine? Oh dear! Stop looking at me!” (To this day, we think of nudity as evil, but God made it clear that that’s only because we think it is, when He said, “Who told you you were naked?”)

Later, someone said to his brother, “You are better than me, so God loves you more than me, therefore, I hate you!” That led to the first murder.

Later still people began saying, “Sex with you is nice, but I could have a better time with someone more beautiful/handsome than you;” and, “You have a prettier woman than I have, and a stronger beast of burden, nicer tools and more land than I have; but I'm stronger than you, so I'm taking it.”

Actually, the basic desires aren't bad in themselves. A healthy sex drive is a good thing, and some desires and urges are simple survival instincts. It's when we're obsessed with comparing the quality or quantity with what others have that it gets out of proportion.

And so, because some were stronger than others, while following the same skewed logic, we've ended up with the unfair Mess that we're in.

Now, question and answer time:

First, how can a loving God allow those things to happen?

The answer: remember the Two possible ways for an omnipotent being to build a clock? Had He chosen the Miracle Dial method, that would be a very good question. If everything worked simply because He had His hands on it making it work, then everything would run perfectly, and all the aforementioned evils wouldn't be happening. But He didn't do it that way. He went with the Clockworks model, designing the universe to run according to the laws of physics and quantum mechanics in a cause-effect continuum. Moreover, because humanity is a transcendent being, as well as an integral part of the clockworks, we had the power to screw things up on a grand scale, which we did.

Then why didn't the Omnipotent Being do something about that before things got out of hand?

Keep in mind, the nature of the universe He made, the clockworks, the careful timing, the laws of physics and the quantum mechanics, and all the preparation that went into the Goldilocks Zone; it's clear that God took no shortcuts. All of that work went into the preparation of humanity's place in the vast clockworks of the universe, as a functioning part of the clockworks.

So, let's rephrase that question: Why didn't the Omnipotent Being do something he hadn't ever done since detonating the Big Bang; and stick His finger into the clockworks, stop the universe, undo the human mistake and then start it off again where it left off?

That's not His way. He had already put humanity into the pilot seat, and had begun His day of rest. Humanity was given the freedom of choice, and with that comes living with those choices. Freewill is a dangerous thing.

Perhaps the next obvious question would be, wasn't God morally wrong in giving humanity freewill when He knew where it would lead?

There are many angles to that one. Part of the assumption is that it was like trusting the keys of the family car to a young child. Others picture it as setting a bowl of sweets on the table, and telling the two-year-old, “Don't touch!” The way the Adam and Eve story is often told, one quite easily comes away with that conclusion. However, if we examine the accounts more carefully, we might get a far different picture: The first man had already named all the animals, and, according to Rabbinical tradition, used sounds that matched the nature of each creature, like a well studied Kabbalist would. So, was Adam no more than a small child? Perhaps it was more like the father entrusting the keys to the car to a son nearing adulthood, who already knows how to drive safely and responsibly, and has already proven himself on many occasions. The son is ready, by anyone's standards, to be trusted with such a potentially dangerous machine. But he still messes up at the critical moment, causing death and destruction. Who is morally responsible for that?

That leads us to another angle:  why was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil there in the first place?

One thing we don't pretend to know is what ultimate purpose it served. There are a few theories, such as: maybe it was meant for  later after humanity had matured to a certain level; or that it was simply there to test humany's obedience; or as a chance to exercise his power to choose. Perhaps none of them completely satisfy everyone, but there is the other consideration: Adam, as we observed, had been there longer, knew what was what, and knew what he was doing. Eve was a new arrivals, so she was easily deceived.

When Adam discovered that Eve had eaten the forbidden fruit, why didn't he take Eve by the hand, lead her to where God would be walking in the cool of the day, and say, “I'm afraid we've had a miss-hap. Eve has gone and eaten from that tree you told us not to, because the snake told her it was good for her. Isn't there anything that can be done for her?” He didn't do that. He simply ate of it himself, knowing full well what the consequences were (and people point to the Genesis story to show how superior men are to women. How was that superior?).

Yet another angle is, would it really have been better to be products of determinism than free will? If we were, would we be enjoying the levels of creativity that we do, pushing the limits to what's possible, or indeed, even discussing free will versus determinism? It's clear from a close examination of Scripture that God's intent in creating humanity was to enjoy companionship on that level.

It's on that level that we see that God, by making use of that “input device”, initiated a midcourse correction intended to eventually bring everything back into line with what it's supposed to be. As anyone knows, who fixes things, some fixes may take a while, and in mid-fix, look even worse than when we started out. That Fix (with a capital F) involved instituting a covenant with various ones, which gave the Omnipotent One the leeway to manifest His Omnipotence in a limited way (things like parting the Red Sea, etc) without overstepping the mandate He had given humanity. In fact, that was the whole point of having a “chosen people”, so He could “legally” maintain a presence on the earth so He could carry out the Fix. Humanity created The Mess, humanity must play a vital part in The Fix.

What about those who have been suffering in the meantime, simply because The Fix is still in the works? What of those who have never heard of The Fix?

The traditional assertion is that every man, woman, boy and girl, puppy and kitten who hasn't read aloud the Sinner's Prayer from the back of a Chick tract, will spend all of eternity burning in the intense fire of hell; it doesn't matter how miserable their life was on earth.

I believe there is a hell, and also a world to come, in which the meek will inherit the earth. I also believe that being fully initiated into God's Kingdom is through repentance and faith - being born again by the Spirit of God. We’ll talk about that in another post. However I also believe it is a mistake to assume that Theologians have distilled the sum of all truth from the little we can read of scripture. I do believe God is just, and besides being omnipotent, He is all knowing. He knows the lives of every abused child, every slave, each bullied and beaten vulnerable person, from beginning to end - and He's just. I can only trust Him with that. That’s a part of having faith in Him.

We do get some vague hints from the Bible, the following from Yeshua's parables:

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus: A rich man who had everything, but never showed mercy to poor diseased Lazarus who sat at the door grabbing what crumbs fell from the dishes as they were being carried out to be washed. Both died, the rich man went to hell, while Lazarus went to a comfortable place and was held in the bosom of Father Abraham. We're not told that Lazarus was a born again Christian, nor whether he was Torah observant; only that he was receiving compensation for a life of misery. The rich man was, apparently receiving just compensation for non Torah observance, particularly of those parts of the Torah that command us not to neglect the poor of the land, to see to the needs of the widows and orphans and the refugees - about consuming the earth's resources without giving anything back.

The parable of the sheep and the goats: At judgement day, the Judge of all the earth sits on His throne, directing some to move to His right, and others to His left. To those on His right He says, “I was sick and you helped me; I was hungry and you fed me; I was imprisoned and you visited me etc… enter into the joy of the Lord.” Those people replied, “Huh?” “When did that happen?” “I've never even been to church!” “I never saw you…” And the Judge replied, “Oh yes you did. When you befriended that homeless kid, when you went out of your way to check how that very sick looking man was doing, when you paid out more than you could afford to feed that family… you were doing it to me.” To those on His left, He had other things to say.

As I said, the above are hints as to God criteria for judgement. A major one is according to how we judge others. Yeshua said, “Don't judge and you won't be judged. By what standard you judge others is how you will be judged.”

I picture one of us standing in the queue at the final judgement: The man just two ahead of you approaches the throne and says, “I was really bad, I know. I had such a bad temper, I beat my wife and my kid A couple of times, and…”

The judge interrupts him, “Yes, you confessed that to me, and by my grace, you were beginning to overcome in that area. You were on your way to becoming a truly good gentle husband and father before your brother-in-law shot you. You are forgiven. Enter into the joy of the Lord.”

The one just before you approaches, saying, “I'm not sure I'm worthy to enter. I couldn't keep my hands to myself, always flirting, my wife divorced me…”

“But you kept looking to me for forgiveness, and you were slowly being transformed by my grace. Enter into my joy.“

Then it's your turn. “I can't think of any reason I can't just enter, can you? I mean, I wasn't nearly as bad as those other two, and they…”

“Not so fast. What about when you went to church wearing a shirt that hadn't been ironed, or that time you were seen picking your nose in front of the City Hall? And then there's the time you bent over to pick up a coin, and the top of your bum was showing!”

“C'mon! Those are such small thing! Those two ahead of me were…”

“I can't judge you the same as them. You wrote your own rulebook when you judged others by how they conduct themselves in public, so I have to judge you by the same standard you judged them.”

Maybe not exactly like that, but you get the picture.

James says in his epistle that by fulfilling the commandment to love our neighbour as ourselves instead of judging and favoring some over others, we qualify ourselves to be assessed by the royal law of liberty.

This brings us to our biggest obstacle; by taking on board the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we've made ourselves experts in judging others, and that, in turn, subjects us to judgement.

By showing mercy, giving people the benefit of the doubt, forgiving personal offences, releasing grudges, we place ourselves under God's mercy. However, we can't simply “unknow” the Knowledge of Good and Evil, can we! As much as we try to forgive and forget, it just keeps coming back. Also, some wounds are so deep that we find it impossible to forgive. That's where we especially need The Fix.

Just as The Mess was created by humanity, so also was The Fix, in the person of Messiah Yeshua. The Omnipotent One had been spending all of human history setting it up so that He, by human consent and cooperation, could send The Fix in the person of His Son, the human, Yeshua.

After spending a lifetime telling us about The Fix, Yeshua Himself became the target of every injury, abuse, slander, false accusation, and was finally subjected unjustly to the most torturous death imaginable; absorbing the shock of all human injustice, while uttering His last words, “Father, forgive them.”

As a human, Yeshua had the authority of a human, but without the setback of having gone wrong. He expended all the energy He had been given, and all the authority He had, until there was no more to expend. The intensity was such, He underwent death; thus, the perfect exercise of human authority, completely undoing the Mess, making The Fix available to all of humanity.

So, what exactly was it that this perfect exercise of human authority enabled the Omnipotent One to do? Something along the line of what He did with the first human, when He breathed into him the Breath of Life. It was so powerful that it brought Him back to life, complete with his body, but in a highly enhanced state. What's more, because it was officially enabled by human authority, it has the potential to affect all humans, solving all the world's problems, eventually bringing resurrection from the dead (in the same enhanced state). It's a force greater than we can imagine, and it's been in our hands ever since.

So what's wrong? We’re like a bunch of kids sitting on top of a machine more powerful than a nuclear reactor, but we're fighting over a game of marbles. … a bit like having a supercomputer in our pocket -or in my case, at the end of a selfie stick - and using it to look at pictures of cats, and getting into arguments with people we've never met. Isn't that just like us?

So now the Fix is in place, it's there in the clockworks, but it's still up to humanity to apply it. That's what we're on about now - some of us anyway.

Israel had twins, their names were Christianity and Islam...

...perhaps not in the sense that we normally think; they were born 600 years apart. The elder twin, Christianity wasn't called by that name at first. It was the local street urchins and the bullies who began calling him that as a taunt. They kept it up for so long that soon he was calling himself that, and the name stuck.

At first, Christianity took after his mother, which meant he reflected the two divine attributes, Justice and Mercy -- also known as Holiness and Love. In fact, he reflected them so well that the mother became jealous, and he began to find it difficult to live in the same house with her. This was also due to the fact that Israel's husband had called, dressed as a beggar; and she, failing to recognise Him, had turned him away. However the son had recognised him, and they stayed in communication. He promised the child that one day, they would all be reunited.
As time went on, the son could no longer stand to live in the same house as his mother, and left home. About that time, the house was seized and the mother also had to leave. They became a broken family.

Cut off from his mother's influence, Christianity began to emphasise the divine attribute of Love and Mercy, neglecting that of Justice and Holiness -- receiving only the new and rejecting the old. He also began to emulate the neighbourhood boys in other ways, and was soon unrecognisable as the son of his mother.

This was truly sad, as the child had been destined to reign as a prince alongside his mother, a queen, and his father, King Messiah. This would bring perfect balance to the universe, however it couldn't happen, because the child who was to be prince was away from home, and his character was becoming increasingly unbalanced. Even as it was, the mantel of “Prince of the Universe” was still on the child, and as such, his imbalance also affected the universe.

What happened next was not the original plan of Him who was to reign as King, but it was as though nature were correcting the imbalance. He allowed it to happen, knowing that it would bring about his purpose in the end, and in the mean time, there would be a semblance of balance in the universe. So, because of the imbalance in the cosmos, a twin was born. Just as the older twin was the son of Abraham through faith, the younger was also a son, through Ishmael. That twin's name was Islam.

Everything that the elder twin rejected, the younger twin embraced. The elder child had clung to mercy at the expense of justice, so the younger twin clung to justice, but rejected mercy. The elder twin had become careless in describing the Holy Trinity, giving the impression that he believed in three gods instead of One God manifested as three persons. The younger twin responded with, “That's polytheism! There is only one God,” and rejected the Trinity. The elder child had begun to describe the doctrine of the Incarnation and Virgin Birth in a pagan sort of way, as though God had intimate relations with Mary to give birth to Messiah, thus His title, the “Son of God”. The younger brother was repulsed by this idea, and retorted, “No! God cannot have children!”

Never-the-less, the younger twin did believe in the Messiah, even acknowledging that He was the Word of God, not realising that that's what the term, “Son of God” really meant in the first place. But he didn't believe in the crucifixion and the resurrection, because those were the ultimate expressions of Mercy. In essence, he had rejected Mercy because his elder brother had so distorted it by divorcing it from Justice. However, his own understanding of Justice was likewise distorted.

It was truly a broken family, and all nature wept. The mother, having fled from her home and living wherever she could, was tormented and persecuted by both of her children – when they weren't too busy fighting each other.

Then, one day the first child had an awakening. He began to realise what a horrible son he had been, and began, by degrees, returning to his mother. The mother's heart also began to open to her son. The son asked her, “Please, remind me of the truths I've neglected this past 2000 years, like Justice the Fear of the Lord.”

As the mother began to open up to her child, her eyes also opened to King Messiah, whom she had once turned away from her door when he came dressed as a beggar. He had been communicating with the elder twin from a distance all along, but the child had not been very good at remembering all that he told him, and didn't know how to mix the new with the old. But now that the King was revealing Himself more directly, the elder son also began to think more clearly and understand the will of the King, and the divine attributes of Justice and Mercy.

Another thing began to happen: the more the older child embraced the more balanced view, his twin began to fade away as his soul began to merge with that of his older brother. Soon, they were no longer two separate twins, but one child. Only a shell of the younger twin's body remained, sort of like a zombie that continued to put up a fight until it disintegrated. There were also other zombies, clones of the mother and elder child that had spawned when the reunion came. For a short time, all the zombies joined forces in an attempt to devour the Queen and the Prince, trying to bring about a zombie apocalypse. That was short-lived, and soon total harmony was restored in the universe as King Messiah reigned with the Queen and the Prince for the rest of eternity.

Image: By William Fraser [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Jewish Prophecy

For the last six or seven years, I've been on the list of a Yahoo Group called JewishClubMaoz@yahoogroups.com . I'm not sure how I got the invitation to join, but I got it and I did. Many on the list appear to be Zionist radicals of the non Messianic sort -- a few of them, militant. Now and then I've found a gem. I believe I've found one just now. It would be easy, of course, to take the following the wrong way, but I believe there's something there.

This is not the usual sort of thing that a nice Christian boy like me would post on a blog, but here goes:

Prophecy

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Many Jews talk about the need to make Israel an authentic Jewish state, and of course they know what is an authentic Jewish state. It's a state based on the Torah, on the Sinai Covenant. It's a state whose ultimate purpose is to sanctify the Name of God by revealing His infinite Wisdom, Power and Graciousness in every domain of existence.

But if we understand what an authentic Jewish state is, why don’t we have a road map to such state? The basic reason is because we have focused our attention and energies on the “Arab problem,” more precisely the “Palestinian problem.” This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not only is entire world is focused on the Palestinian problem, but Israel's Government is committed to the establishment of an Arab-Islamic state on Israel's own territory! Let's try to get to the bottom of this bizarre situation.

(1) Israeli governments have focused the world’s attention on the Palestinian problem because these foolish governments have failed to address Israel's most fundamental problem the Jewish problem!

(2) Stated another way, every Israeli government has been focused on the territorial-

cum-security issue. So lo and behold, Israel is losing territory and has never been more insecure!

Want more? Okay.

(3) Israel’s (paranoid) prime ministers are always preoccupied with Israel’s image in the media or among the nations. This is precisely why Israel has never had a more horrible image among the nations.

Are you getting the message? You all know that the Zionist enterprise had two basic goals: to provide for the security and restore the dignity of the Jewish people by establishing a Jewish state in Eretz Israel. Right?

But where was God in this scenario? Do you find God mentioned in Theodor Herzl’s The Jewish State—Herzl, the only name mentioned in the document now called Israel’s Declaration of Independence?

So, instead of God, what does Israel look up to—because if a people have nothing to look up to, it’s on the way to looking down on its feet. Instead of looking up to God it will look up to man. It’s called "humanism." But inasmuch as biologists such as Richard Dawkins have shown that man is descended from the apes, an awful lot of Israelis have discovered that Israel has no statesman at the helm—just apes!

Let me put it another way. What do Israel’s decision-makers and opinion-makers exalt? But of course—DEMOCRACY! Everyone knows this. Everyone knows that the paramount concern of Israel’s ruling elites—politicians and judges, academics and journalists—is to secure Israel’s reputation as a Democracy. This is what gives Israel's government Legitimacy and Israel's elites with Respectability. Right? But notice that the nations are now seeking to delegitimize Israel despite its vaunted democracy! Sort of ironic, no?

But where is the Torah in this Israeli scenario? Wasn’t it the Torah that preserved the Jewish people and endowed them with personal and national dignity?

Will someone tell me what would have happened to the Jewish people after the destruction of the Second Temple without the Torah? Why they would have become as extinct as the dodo. Which means that had Israel been led by the likes of Yitzhak Rabin (read Shimon Peres), Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and Binyamin Netanyahu—and let's add that "everything-is-justiciable" jurisprudent Aharon Barak—the Jews would have suffered the fate of the Neanderthals.

Poor Israel! Having abandoned the God of Israel and the Torah, various leaders of the so-called Jewish state are so desperate that they solicit the political support of Christians! Christians may think this is the fulfillment of prophecy.

But the Jewish sages knew that in the end of days, Israel would be ruled by paltry governments. That's where Israel is today. Like the foolish governments of Europe and the United States, they are succumbing to Allah and the Quran—to barbarians. But don't despair. The Jewish sages saw the current state of affairs as a preliminary to a renaissance of Hebraic civilization.

The Gospel of the Kingdom -- Jesus Creed

Scot McKnight has been talking about the Gospel of the Kingdom as presented in Luke's two books. (his Gospel, and Acts of the Apostles). He pinpoints many things that could correct our perception of the gospel message.

Forinstance, Campus Crusade's 4 Spiritual Laws and other similar bullet-point presentations, are not theologically wrong, just not the whole story. We're not giving the broader picture, only what applies to me, and, "how can I get to heaven?"

You'll find the following reconstruction on his most recent installment. You'll recognise the Campus Crusade version, but I believe this says it all:

God loves you and everyone else and has a plan for us: the kingdom community.

But you and everyone else have a sin problem that separates you and everyone else from God, from yourselves, from one another, and from the good world God made for you.

The good news is that Jesus lived for you, died for you, was raised for you, and sent the Spirit for you - so you all can live as the beloved community.

If you enter into Jesus' story, by repentance and faith, you can be reconnected to God, to yourself, to others, and to this world.

Those who are reconnected like this will live now as God's community and will find themselves eternally in union with God and communion with others.

Those who preach this gospel will not deconstruct the church. Instead, they will participate in what God is doing: constructing the kingdom community even now.

To get access to all the posts he done on this subject, use the Kingdom tag.

What's the Gospel about -- Kingdom or After-life?

For the last two or so years, I've had the fortune to work in an office right next to St. Georges Market in Belfast. Friday and Saturday are market days, and on Fridays, they have antiques, used items, books, cheeses and more. After sampling a few of the cheeses, and one or two olives I usually head over to the bookseller, who usually has a big selection of children's books, all for 25 p per copy. Thanks to that bookseller, Abie, at three and a half, now has a good sized library, including a good number of Beatrice Potter stories, Noddy, Postman Pat, books by current authors like Charlotte Voak, Shirley Hughes, Tony Ross, Allan and Janet Alburgh, as well as a few good Bible story books.
When reading them to Abie, I sometimes find myself telling the story to him rather than reading word-for-word, especially the Bible stories. I do that for others too, like The Tailor of Gloucester, just so Abie won't be bored by the wordiness of some of the narratives. For the Bible stories, I'm a little bit fussy about Bible accuracy, and what kind of message the story is getting across.
For instance, take this bit from The Storm on the Lake (Taffy Davies; Tamarin Books; 1995, UK). The scene opens with Yeshua on the shore of Galilee:

...Jesus healed the people who were ill and he answered question after question from people in the crowd.
'What's heaven like?'
'How can I get there?'
'Tell us, Jesus, why do you talk to people who do bad things?'
'Can you make my leg better?'
'Can you come and heal my mum?'...

So, what's wrong with that narration?
Nothing, if it were about Yeshua preaching to a group of farmers in Wyoming in the late twentieth century. People living in first century Galilee wouldn't have been asking those questions -- especially the first two -- and by pretending that they would, we sell the gospel short.
The questions they would have been asking were, 'Are you really the Messiah? If so, what's on the Kingdom agenda?' Moreover, Yeshua's message was very much tied in with the answering of those questions.
Here in the twenty-first century, we like to talk about how the Jews of the first century misunderstood Yeshua's ministry, and failed to grasp His role as the sacrificial Lamb ushering in the New Covenant. That is indeed so, but at the same time, we fail to realise that the the Kingdom of God -- meaning the Earthly Messianic Kingdom, or the revived Kingdom of David -- was never-the-less at the heart of it all. By not taking that into account, we miss half of what Yeshua's ministry was all about.
While we think the Jewish community has missed the whole point, they also think we've missed it. We're both right, and we're both wrong. They misunderstood Messiah's redemptive role, and we've misunderstood the part the Kingdom plays. No wonder we're not communicating!
It's not that the question of getting into heaven isn't a good one to ask. After all, people have been asking it, so it obviously reflects the concerns they have. Also, Yeshua did say a lot about the afterlife. It's just that that's not all there is to it. Heavenly rewards are only one part of the bigger picture.
It's all in how we understand two words: Gospel and Salvation.
The first century church saw the Gospel as being the good news that the Kingdom of God is at hand. Salvation meant being saved from sin, and everything that keeps us back from being apart of that Kingdom.
The 'Kingdom' meant, God's will being accomplished on earth as it is in heaven. This had relevance both to the world that is now, and the world to come, the Millennium.
The Church is the Kingdom Community in the present world. Acts 20:28 refers to us as the Church of God which He has purchased with His own blood. Our new birth is our initiation as citizens of that Kingdom, but our role is established as we work out our salvations with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12).
Salvation is all about enabling us to take an active part in the Kingdom in the world that exists now. It also makes us eligible for the world to come -- the Millennial reign, heaven, and all that -- but the goal of evangelism and discipleship is to build a people of God that will be the hope of the world, have an impact on the worlds problems, especially in the area of sickness, demonic bondage, hunger, despair, etc., the same as what Yeshua's earthly ministry was all about.
I don't believe this happens by gaining political control, or dominating the national cultural (though this may appear to be the result at times); rather, by our presence, even as a persecuted people. The passage that we call the Beatitudes sums this up by describing the ones to be included in the kingdom, and are therefore the blessed: the poor, the meek, those who weep, who make peace, the pure in heart, etc. To these, he says, even as they're suffering persecution, even as the supposed underdogs, 'you are the salt of the earth ... the light of the world. For you, the world exists. You will inherit it all.'
That was the gist of Yeshua's message to the crowd at the Galilee seaside -- along with, maybe, one ore two warnings about who might end up in hell, and not attain to the resurrection of the righteous.
So, how did our understanding of the message change?
I believe we didn't totally lose our concept of Kingdom as a present reality until very recently in history, although we did run with it in a few different directions, like turning it into a political agenda, etc.
We started out with a very Jewish concept of Kingdom.
The rabbis were staunchly pre-millennial. At times, some of them verged on being dispensational. Here's a small sampling of opinions you can find in the Talmud:

Rabbi Kattina said: Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, "And the Lord (alone) shall be exalted in that day." Abaye said: it will be desolate two [thousand], as it is said, "After two days will He revive us: in the third day, He will raise us up, and we shall live in His sight. (Hosea vi:2)
It has been taught in accordance with Rabbi Kattina: Just as the seventh year is one year of release in seven, so is the world: one thousand years out of seven shall be fallow, as it is written, "And the Lord (alone) shall be exalted in that day," as it is further said, "A Psalm and song for the Sabbath day" (Ps xcii:1) meaning the day that is altogether Sabbath -- and it is also said, "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past" (Ps xc:4)
It was taught in the School of Elijah, The world will endure six thousand years -- two thousand years in chaos, two thousand with Torah, and two thousand years will be the days of the Messiah. (all three of the above passages from: Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 97a)

It's interesting that Peter also quotes Psalm 90:4 in reference to Messiah's second coming:

Moreover, dear friends, do not ignore this: with the Lord, one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like on day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some people think of slowness; on the contrary, he is patient with you; for it is not his purpose that anyone should be destroyed, but that everyone should turn from his sins. (II Peter 3:8,9 CJB)

Even apart from taking various passages in Revelation etc. at face value, there's also external evidence that the early believers were pre-millennial. Take this passage from Jerome:

Papias, a hearer of John, (and) bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, wrote only five books, which he entitled An Exposition of Discourses of the Lord. {...} This (Papias) is said to have promulgated the Jewish tradition of a Millennium, and he is followed by Irenaeus, Apollinarius and the others, who say that after the resurrection the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints. - (JEROME de vir. illust. 18.)

If we consider that Papias was probably a pupil of John, as well as his scribe when he wrote his epistles, I think he should have known what John meant by his references to the Millennium. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that John and the other apostles were also pre-millennial.
The difference between the early Messianic sect and the rabbis in this was that the Kingdom wasn't strictly a future thing, but something in the making. Messiah had come already, but that wasn't the end of it. He only initiated a process that would be complete at His second coming -- the resurrection. However it may seem that that process has stalled, and seems at times, non-existent, as Peter pointed out in the above passage, it is nevertheless a process that will complete at the return of Messiah.
By the time Jerome wrote the above bit, a couple hundred years later, things had obviously changed. The church had pretty much dumped anything that sounded too Jewish, and had adopted a Greek style philosophical outlook regarding things like Millennium, which meant they were Post-mil. Replacement theology had become the norm. However, there was still the concept of Kingdom. St. Augustine's City of God was all about the Kingdom of God as a present reality.
The Reformation didn't change very much, except to suggest that the Pope was the Antichrist. St. Augustine's theology remained at the centre of things. Much of what we attribute to John Calvin, is really from St. Augustine. Perhaps they didn't take some of the points made in The City of God quite as literally as the Roman church did, but the concept was still there.
In fact, many attribute the renaissance to the dynamics of the Kingdom of God at work. Things that began during that time led to changes in many areas, including the Industrial Revolution. Even Marxism has it's roots in some of the thoughts expressed at that time.
One thing that definitely had an influence was the invention of the printing press, by Gutenberg. The first book off the press was the Bible, so the masses could begin reading it for themselves and formulating their own interpretations. Another document that became widely distributed, thanks to the press, was Martin Luther's 95 theses, which became the starting point of the reformation.
After the discovery of fire and the invention of the wheel, the printing press is probably the most world changing technology we've ever seen. Because books were suddenly available, people considered it worth their while to learn to read. Literacy became the norm instead of the exception. We now judge how stupid or smart people are by what they read, not if they can read. Leaders who learned to use the printed word, rose to power, and replaced those who didn't. The printing press is what enabled many of the world changing forces, including the spiritual.
One of Martin Luther's points was that each person had the right to read and understand the scripture for himself. How effective would this concept have been, had not the printing press come to use at the same time, making it possible to do just that?
But there were also Kingdom principals at work. I'm sure God's hand was on the timing of the invention of the press, as well as the other factors that formed the world we now live in.
Many of the norms of modern society that we now consider standard, such as the abolition of slavery in Western countries, social reform, welfare programs, child labour laws, health care and relief aid, were the direct result of people with the faith to apply Kingdom principals to their environment. I'm sure we could go on endlessly listing the various movements, ideas and such that made the world what it is today.
Today's world, that we're familiar with, is a totally different place than the one in which Yeshua held out the hope of the Kingdom. We don't worry about what we're going to eat or wear. We're much higher on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
That's not to say that in much of the world today, this isn't the case, but we've successfully hidden that fact from ourselves so that the true state of much of the world's population only occasionally peeps out at us from the odd World Vision poster. But even the fact that there is overpopulation in poor countries is due to advances in medicine that reduced the number of infant deaths, another knock-on effect of Kingdom dynamics.
It's this insular, user-friendly world that we live in -- the world that resulted from applying Kingdom principals -- that is partly the reason we no longer ask the right questions.
It's a supply demand problem. For the past 150 years or so, we've lived in a middle class culture that has never known the bondage and hardship that Israelites in the first century faced. We don't need an earthy Messianic Kingdom to alleviate our present suffering. We're quite comfortable enough as we are.
For us, eschatology is a spiritual hobbyhorse, the stuff of Christian science fiction stories, like Left Behind. For them it was a matter of, 'It had better happen soon, or we're done for!'
The only thing we need now is assurance of life in the hereafter. So, we're not asking, when will Yeshua set up His kingdom and chase away the baddies. We're asking the same question the characters in Abie's storybook were asking: 'What's heaven like? How can I get there?' Or, 'After a lifetime of happily living out the American Dream -- or living in this European paradise, enjoying my social benefits, etc., how can I be sure that I will be at least as happy in the next life as I am now?' Maybe that's being facetious, but you get the point.
It was in this setting that J.N. Darby, C.I. Schofield and the other proponents of Dispensationalism got started. That's the doctrine that puts the Kingdom of God squarely in the future rather than now. It's the environment in which their doctrine spread like wildfire; and the same, in which the conservative faction, who saw the 'going-to-heaven' issue as all important, parted ways with the liberals, who held to the kingdom dynamics of alleviating suffering; forcing the rest of us to choose either one or the other.
I suppose, if you consider how strong a force supply-demand is, it's only natural.
So, my only question is now, do we have to wait for a major crises that will shake the foundations of Western civilisation before we begin, once again, to ask the right questions?
In the mean time, I don't trust Bible storybook writers.

A Study on Judgment

As I said in yesterday's post, my story, Allegory, which has just been published on Next Wave ezine, is sure to raise questions about my view on heaven, hell and the possibility of purgatory. I promised to post something about it:

[29 August 2006] I had all posted here, but it was rather long, making it inconvenient for anyone trying to scroll down to see my earlier posts. I'll supply this link instead.

Besides being more convenient, I've also edited a bit more, and added some more to the end, which should put things in even more perspective. The editing isn't 100% complete yet, so this is a work in progress.

money, happiness and repentance

Some of the comments from Scott Adams blog (see my previous post) are revealing, indeed, when you consider how important our attitude towards money is in the Kingdom of God.

The Gospels and Acts show repentance and one's attitude towards money as inseparably linked. The story of the rich young ruler is probably the best place to start.

If we begin with Yeshua's conversation with the rich young ruler, take in some of His other comments on discipleship, and work our way into Acts, and observe how the earliest believers responded to the call to repent, we definitely see a pattern. While no one told the crowds in Jerusalem at Pentecost, "Sell all you have, give it to the poor, and follow Yeshua", as Yeshua told the rich young ruler, that's exactly what many of them did.

Before we go on to some of the more obvious hang-ups some may have with this pattern, let's consider two more aspects of this:

Consider the proverb, "The love of money is the root of all evil" (I Tim 6:10): If conversion is defined by deliverance from evil, then the early believers certainly proved it by showing that they were no longer controlled by the love of money.

If we defined it from a positive viewpoint, we could say that the life of Messiah is characterised by the commandment, "love your neighbour as yourself". What obvious characteristics would you expect of someone who truly loved their neighbour at least as equally as they loved themselves? How could such a person fail to be lavishly generous? That's exactly what the early believers in Jerusalem exemplified, and it's exactly the intent of Yeshua's answer to the rich young ruler. Remember, that Yeshua built up to this answer by listing those of the Ten Commandments that would relate to loving ones neighbour.

The above description obviously doesn't describe the average Christian of our day. I won't even say it describes me, but I hope I'm on my way there. Because it is such a high ideal, and people don't tend to like measuring themselves by what they're not, this isn't a very popular train of thought.

Most believers today would choose not to associate Yeshua's answer to the rich young ruler with Christian conversion. That's "Old Testament dispensation", they say. They'd rather look to Paul's answer to the Phillippian jailor, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you'll be saved...".

I believe that Yeshua's answer to the rich young ruler is just as relevant to Christian conversion and the born again experience as Paul's answer to the Phillipian jailor. Despite some popular theology that says otherwise, there is no scripture passage in the Bible that says that Yeshua'a teachings are not meant for believers living in the "age of grace", which Yeshua came to innaugerate. The first New Testament church began on the foundation of Yeshua's teaching. Paul's epistles came later. To truly understand Paul, you have to know where he was coming from, and what his listeners already understood. In most cases, he was writing to churches that already had a solid foundation in Yeshua's teaching. When he talked about faith, they knew what it meant.

So, why didn't Paul tell the jailor in Phillippi to sell everything he had?

Because the Phillippian jailor was coming to Paul with a different attitude than that of the rich young ruler. He was trembling under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, whereas the rich young ruler was following a half hearted desire to be spiritually "with it". Up to that time, in the prison, Paul and Silas weren't just singing some nice little ditties to keep themselves happy despite their circumstances. They were doing spiritual warfare, which had begun with the exorcism of the spirit medium, and climaxed with the earthquake. The loosing of the fetters was symbolic of what was happening in the spirit realm. There was an atmosphere in that room like there was in Jerusalem, while Peter was preaching during Pentecost. He didn't have to tell them to sell everything and give it to the poor. The Holy Spirit did that.

It's also interesting that after such a start, the believers of Philippi were also noted for their generosity. Paul comments on that more than once in his epistles (II Corinthians and Philippians).

When Yeshua told the rich young ruler to sell everything, he wasn't laying down an Old Testament type law. He was giving him a tailor made plan to prepare him for the Kingdom of God, just like the Holy Spirit will do for each of us, if we let him, and like the Holy Spirit did for the early believers. Yeshua knew what his hang up was. He was probably saving him from a fate like that of Annanias and Sapphira.

We know it wasn't a hard and fast rule (selling all), because a few verses later, Zakkheus was so turned on that he announced he was giving half of his riches away to the poor. Yet, Yeshua didn't say, "Not enough, give it all". No. He said, "Salvation has come to this house".

I believe that if we had the discernment and the boldness that Yeshua had with the rich young ruler, that Peter had with Annias and Sapphira, Simon the sorcerer, etc., we'd begin to see the same power that the early church saw.

But are we willing to pay the price?

Scott McKnight on the Gospel -- update

Further to my last post, Scott McKnight's blog entries on What is the Gospel, have been combined into an article in Next Wave e-zine.

Scott McKnight on the Gospel

Scott McKnight has an excellent series of blogs on exactly what is the Gospel. The link above is to a page that includes the whole series, including a few more that fit into the cattigory. Start reading from the bottom of the page (in normal blog fashion).

What makes Church? 7 - Foundations

Foundational teaching is among the most important things that make up the stability and vitality of church. It can make the difference between a handful of cheery believers who think this idea of Emerging Church (or Messianic, or whatever) is a cool idea and get on for the ride; and a committed taskforce that all know who they are, what they are, and where they're going. Both groups, by our definition, are "church", but the second one will stay together much longer.

The true foundation is Yeshua. All foundational teaching will focus on Him, and will plant us firmly on who He is. In one way, it's a simple concept -- simple enough for new believers to know which direction to begin going without complicating the issue.

However, if we consider that the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments also focuses on Yeshua, we realise that there's more to it than meets the eye. If we further realise that to understand the Old Testament helps us to understand the New, and thus roots us all the more deeply in Yeshua, we realise that we may have a ways to go to being firmly built on the Foundation.

The Messianic movement has done a valuable job in returning us to our foundations. By highlighting the Jewish source of our faith, we can now see a few things in perspective. Some may feel that they are among those complicating the issue. However, the issue became complicated long before they arrived on the scene. If anything, they're helping to un-complicate things.

We have to understand that the writers of the Gospels and the Epistles were Jewish. As revolutionary as their message was, it was rooted in Jewish culture, and in a Jewish understanding of divine revelation. But somehow, we've lost that. We no longer look at biblical revelation with a Jewish mind, but with a Greek philosopher's mind. How did this happen?

I'll answer with a short history:

To the rabbis, what Yeshua and His apostles had to say was quite radical -- radical enough for many of them to reject it outright as heresy. The early believers knew that their message was radical. The idea of Gentiles being accepted as equals without them having to become Torah observant, was extreme!

The Gentile believers knew that their new found faith was radical for their Jewish brethren. In fact, they were warned, by Paul et al, to be on guard for some of their Jewish brethren of the old school who would try to make them Torah observant. So they were. They knew they were radical.

But how radical? some of them wondered. Can we be this radical? Can we dump everything that Judaism ever taught and base our understanding on Greek style logic? By the time they were asking loud enough to be heard, the original writers of the New Testament had already passed from the scene. The majority of the Messianic population was now Gentile. So, they began to interpret the whole of the New Testament and as much of the Old Testament as they could using mathematical logic learned from Plato and Aristotle (in fact, they even began forcing Jewish believers to become Gentiles!). Because Paul sounded more Greek than the rest, and was, after all, the one who told the Gentile believers to avoid being forced into Torah observance, his epistles were understood as being foundational to Christian belief. The Gospels, because they made Yeshua sound Jewish, was understood to being targetted to Old Testament Judaism, and not to New Testament Christians. They were only good for historical value. But the real meat was the Pauline epistles.

Unfortunately, this was the theological equivalent of mistaking the window and door frames, the drywall and the roofing material for the foundation of a building, and using the foundational material for decoration.

Consider that when the New Testament writers talked about the scripture, they were referring to the Torah and the Prophets and other Old Testament writings. Only Peter, shortly before he and the other New Testament writers passed from the scene, referred to Paul's epistles as "scripture", but also said they were easy to misunderstand, and that many had twisted them out of context to their own destruction (II Peter 3:15,16). This means that one has to have a good foundational knowledge of God's revelation in Yeshua before they can understand Paul's epistles.

Yeshua said in Matthew 7, "He who hears these words of mine (i.e. the Gospels), and does them is like a man building on the foundation". Hebrews 6 gives us a list of what the foundations are, referring to them as the "elementary principals of Messiah": Repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection and eternal judgement. The Gospels open up with repentance and faith. The General Epistles, James, Peter's and John's epistles, and Jude also deal directly with faith and repentance and the other foundations.

For example, they give us a good definition of faith. The Pauline epistles talk about faith, but they don't supply a definition.

If we were to go straight to Ephesians chapter 2, and forget James 3, we would read, "By grace you are saved through faith...not of works." Later on, if we read James, who says, "Faith without works is dead," we'd think the two passages were contradictory.

In the mean time, our faith might not amount to very much. We would think, "Yeah, I believe. I said the sinner's prayer, so I'm saved. I can claim every spiritual blessing in Messiah," while living a very carnal life. Anytime someone pointed out our carnality, we'd retort, "Salvation isn't of works! I'm saved by faith!"

However, if we established our definition of what faith is by understanding the message of James, then we'd know what kind of faith Paul is talking about when he says we're saved by faith.

We're not saved by works, but real faith that saves will produce works. A life based on true faith will be readily distinguishable from a life that isn't. James and I John is full of that.

When many pollsters today tell us that the life of the average "born again" Christian looks no different from that of an average non-Christian, that tells us that we've got our foundation all wrong.

p.s. I've got a project underway, writing series of study outlines that cover foundational truth. It begins in the Old Testament, and takes us into the New. It's not complete yet, but I'm sure you could learn a lot. Click here...

This is the last in the What Makes Church? series. I haven't covered the subheading Worship yet, but there's so much good material out there on that already, and I don't feel I have anything to add to it. However, I'm sure we'll discuss issues related to this and the othe subheadings, and more besides, in future posts.

What Makes Church? 6 - leadership, authority, ministry, giftings, etc.

Just a short one today, with a few links to some useful articles regarding church.

Two are by Rick Joyner, who believes that one of the priorities that churches generally fail in is equipping the believers for ministry. Usually, only 2% of church members take any part in ministry. At Morningstar Fellowship, at the time he wrote the articles below, 15 to 20 % are involved, and he feels they have a long way to go. The two articles are:

Megatrends in the New Millennium (on Next Reformation website)

Shepherd's Astray (from Morningstar website)

Another one who has a lot to say is Andrew Strom, who believes that the next revival will be a street revival. Even calling it "house church" would be incorrect, as it will be on the streets. His website is called, Revival School. He has written an e-book called The Nine Lies of Today’s Church, available in PDF format from the adotadonai.net website. He comes on very strong, and many won't agree with everything he says. However, the last chapter qualifies the overall message by saying that to expect a church to immediately adopt all of his points (ie. selling their church building, changing the pastor's roll, trashing all programs, etc) may be impossible, and perhaps unwise to attempt. To be honest, there's nothing in it that I can say I disagree with -- though I may not come on as strongly as he -- but I would agree that the church described as the antithesis to the "9 lies" may be impossible in most places (at least in the free world) until after a major shaking has happened to Western society. We may discuss some of his points at another time in this blog.

There are also many other websites and blogs, some of which you'll find in the sidebar, that are good resources for doing church the organic or emergent way. Some of them simply offer a window into various local fellowiships. Others also offer valuable resources, as well as links to yet more.

What Makes Church? 5 - leadership, authority, ministry, giftings

In many ways, the two subheadings Leadership and Authority, and Ministry and Giftings, overlap. That's because good leadership is not only a gift, but it facilitates gifts and ministry among the members to the extant where it could be hard to tell the difference between the "full time ministers" and what we previously thought were "laity".

A few years ago, at a church conference in Thailand, I was asked to interpret for one of the speakers. He was the pastor of a Baptist church in New Zealand, who had led his church through a very interesting transition. It began as he was pondering and praying about how the church could fulfil its mandate of reaching the world, then realising that it wouldn't happen unless some drastic changes were made. The transition he took the church through was difficult, he lost many valuable members, but was worth it in the end.

Not only did the process change the structure of the church, but it redefined their concept of ministry. Under the new structure, more of the responsibilities lay with the group of elders. Some were the same who originally served on the board, but they were had a calling in one of the five-fold ministries listed in Ephesians 4. Their role wasn't so much to minister, but to lead and enable the members to minister in the five areas. The pastor reduced his own role to that of a fellow elder, albeit a leader among equals. They were only ministers in so much as they ministered. It was no longer a job that came with a title. Moreover, anyone could be a minister. It wasn't so much a matter of being chosen for a position, but simply doing what they saw needed to be done. In doing that, they had the support and mentoring of whichever elder was called to that gifting.

The whole idea of a separation between clergy and laity was obsolete. Furthermore, as a minister in this sense, it's so much easier to be humble -- no title to maintain.

As I was translating for him from English into Thai, I was becoming more and more excited by what I was hearing. I had just recently started following the Emergent conversation, and pondering what exactly is church, and what would it look like if reduced to its bare essentials. Some of the aspects, such as the definition of ministry, had been in my head and heart for many years. But now, here was someone who was actually doing it. Now, I know it's possible.

What Makes Church? 4 - Leadership and Authority...continued

I believe that Matthew 18 is key to understanding what the church and leadership in it is all about. It is very significant that this discourse begins with the following:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me..."

First, we must understand that the concept of "church" didn't exist in the understanding of Yeshua's disciples. While the word appears in some English translations later in chapter 18, quoted in yesterday's blog entry, the word should be understood as "congregation", or "minyan", a concept understood in Judaism.

Judaism also understood the concept of "kingdom of God", or "kingdom of heaven" (which are synonymous terms), used in the above passage. They might not have understood exactly what Yeshua meant by it. What Yeshua meant, includes what the Pauline epistles later refer to as "church". I realise that this is something that could take up more space in explaining than I intend to do here. Instead, I'll refer you to Scot McKnight's recent blogs on the subject. I'll just say here that too often, we've separated the concepts of Kingdom and Church.

What Yeshua is referring to here isn't just the way things will be in the sweet bye 'n bye. To be sure, our life in heaven will reflect this, but what we need to grasp is that what Yeshua is saying is, leaders in the church are to be those who are the most humble, and accessible -- like children. Later in the chapter, we see, in the parable of the lost sheep, what Yeshua expects in leaders in the way of compassion, and priorities. All of this is something we, who think we're leadership material, ought to be considering very seriously.

Again, you'll find all of this discussed in more detail in chapter 12 of my online book, Culture Shock.