Inside Out

1 Corinthians 2:14-3:9

Watching a movie recently about the 1956 Montgomery AL bus boycott, which ultimately began the Civil Rights Movement, it occurred to me that in the two "sides" involved in the struggle against one another - or against a "system", depending on perspective - there was a risk of "loss" for each but from two different perspectives. One "side" felt like there was too much to lose and no discernable gain to make it worth standing up for what was right, while the other "side" had so much to gain that there was nothing worth keeping left to lose. Such differences in perspective actually define the gap that exists between the True Mission that is the Church and ambivalent worship attendance.

There are many and varied conditions within the American church that have continually contributed to an overall decline in worship attendance, but there is only one dominant condition that defines the difference between the "vital" and compelling Body of Christ - and a building with a cross; and that condition is determined by whether we think we have "too much to lose" - or whether we realize the true value of what is really at stake. And it sometimes seems as though we lose sight of what is at stake because we become comfortable within a self-created Christian subculture that has all the language and idiosyncrasies of pop-Christian culture but with a distinctive "worldly" flavor that is, ironically, familiar to those on the inside but completely foreign to those on the outside.

I thought of all this in light of a book I'm currently reading as well as Jesus' prayer to the Holy Father about His disciples as recorded in John 17:15: "I do not pray that You should take them out of world, but that You should keep them from the evil one." And the book I'm reading is entitled, "They like Jesus but not the Church" by Dan Kimball. Add to this mix an article in yesterday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that featured a 10-year-old church that was apparently founded for people who do not like The Church. Among the attributes of this "non-church" church were "great programs" such as music, relevant preaching, Bible studies, etc. All the markings of "church" but ostensibly designed for people who don't like The Church.

Once we stir in everything, then we read St. Paul's admonition to the Corinthian church that he could not speak to "as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh" because in the midst of all their internal conflicts and arguments, they had all the makings and the markings of a secular sub-culture, yet they called themselves "Christians". "For as long as there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving according to human inclinations?"

Yes they were. Yes we are. And yes, so are the "non-church" church people who are in the process of creating for themselves a unique subculture that, like all other churches and denominations, will welcome people in but works harder at sustaining the internal Christian subculture that does little to promote the missional nature of the Body of Christ which is undeniably "the" Church - not "several" - and certainly not a building.

If the Church IS the Body of Christ, the Christ who is so compelling, then it cannot be confined to a building - it must by definition be active and mobile. It must necessarily GO rather than WAIT. It must STAND FIRM rather than SIT QUIETLY. It must not be afraid of the dominant secular culture, but it must also be distinct from that culture.

Internal programs and personal preferences are among the many important elements that make up the life of a church but if these programs are not designed toward Christian education - not indoctrination - and are not inclined toward mission work, toward teaching the faithful how to function in the world as the "salt" and "light" of Christ, then all that exists is an infrastructure that is self-sustaining and pleasing only to those who are inside. It is a foreign subculture that people on the outside do not understand. And if programs of self-sustenance or entertainment are the dominant elements of the life of a church, the church is falling flat and loses its integrity as a church and becomes more like a private chapel suitable only for those who "fit in".

Speaking to a pastor friend recently in another part of the state, he expressed to me that he might have been better off becoming a firefighter rather than a church pastor because he spends entirely too much of his time "fighting fires"! As we were talking, we both seemed to realize that internal problems are borne of an inactive community of believers who call themselves "Christians" but are not inclined toward "mission", the very nature of Christ Himself, which is to say that they spend entirely too much time looking inward - "navel gazing" - focusing only on their own problems and not nearly enough time looking outward "from the balcony". "Navel gazers" see only what concerns themselves; they do not see outwardly toward the "big picture" because, quite frankly, they don't care beyond themselves. This cannot - this MUST NOT - be the Church, the Body of Christ.

The problem with "mission" is that most Christians have come to understand "mission" as going into a jungle and trying to witness to cannibals! We think in terms of the missional church in Unalaska that we have supported, and we have visions of all sorts of overseas missions in strange lands with strange customs and even stranger cultures and languages. We can easily see that many, if not most, of us are not geared or even gifted toward that kind of life. So we write 'em a check and call it good. There is nothing wrong with writing a check if this is all one is capable of.

At the worship service conclusion we jump into our cars and drive right through and into the greatest mission field we could ever hope to find, but we're driving so fast or are so focused on our destination - beating the Baptists to the buffet! - that we hardly notice the tons of folks with whom we share a common culture and a common language, but not a common Lord. Unlike the foreign missionaries, however, we don't try to appreciate who these people are and we don't care much for where they are or what they believe or even think; we care more than they should think and believe and speak as we do. We see it as our jobs, perhaps our "personal mission" to make these neighbors see things our way - and when they don't, we write them off as "lost". I don't think it ever occurs to us that they may be open to such interaction, but they don't understand our lingo or our subculture.

If you think I am pointing a finger here, you bet I am. STRAIGHT INTO THE MIRROR! It has occurred to me that far too many churches - and far too many pastors - have become so internally oriented that this is where we find the time to fight and to fuss and to worry about what is and what isn't, what we like and don't like, and we have all this time on our hands for "quarrelling" because we are not busy at all with the work of the Kingdom of Heaven; we are not at all about the mission of Christ, the mission to which we have been "saved" and called. Like the old saying goes, "idle time is the devil's playground, idle hands the devil's tools". And make no mistake; the devil is very busy IN the Church.

It may sound hopeless, but there is always hope where there is life and light because what does exist within the Christian subculture are "relationships", friendships that have been forged by a common cause, a common culture, a common language, a common Lord. The hope which exists - and will always exist - is that these existing relationships came from the same place and from the same hearts and from the same Lord as other relationships that are waiting to be developed. There are people out there who have no one. They don't need to be "saved"; they need to be loved. They need to know someone cares. And they will never know how deeply Christ cares until His followers step out and take a chance regardless of the risk.

My dear friends, these very people are the ones who are waiting for you and for me to finally "get it right", to finally come to understand what it really means to be the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world" because they are quite literally dying from broken hearts, profound loneliness, and extreme poverty of spirit. They've heard about this Jesus, but they have yet to experience His true grace because they have yet to experience one of His true followers. They've probably met all sorts of Crusaders, Christian "soldiers", enforcers of the code and the faith, and they may well have been genuinely wounded by some, but they have yet to meet one of the "medics" of the Great Physician.

It is time. There never was a better time than right now. It is time for us as individuals and it is time for this church, this Body of Christ, to step outside of our flesh and into the Spirit of the Lord. It is time for us to take risks and put everything on the table. It is time to take what we know from inside this building and inside this sanctuary and turn it OUT! It is time for the world to meet Jesus the Christ - perhaps for the very first time. Through YOU. And through ME. We have nothing left to lose but the life we think we have gained. And we have everything to gain from the life we think we have to lose.

Means of Grace III: Scripture Study

1 Corinthians 1:18-31
Matthew 5:1-12

Every moment of every day we are teaching someone something, and every moment of every day we are learning something from someone - whether we are consciously aware or not. I think there can be no exception to this rule and I also think if there is an exception to this rule, there is a complete disconnect from reality. What we are teaching and what we are learning, however, is often the difference between what we know about our culture and the larger society in which we live - and what we know about the Lord. And what we know about the Lord is intimately and directly related to how much time and effort we invest in the study of Scripture.

Regardless of what we may think we know to be true, there is no one born "just knowing" anything. Those who have studied to become engineers, for instance, spent hours upon hours studying math and science. Those who studied to become attorneys invested at least as many hours studying the law. Those who study medicine invest a lifetime in the study, practice, and art of healing. This endeavor alone is, quite literally, the difference between life and death and requires mountains of books. These students and practitioners immerse themselves completely in these mountains of books in their devotion to preserving life and cheating death, the knowledge and faith in doing so coming from so many books and years of instruction.

There is one Book, however; actually a collection of books within one volume that teaches about Eternal Life and absolutely defeats death, the knowledge and faith coming from this one, single volume but also with years of instruction, a lifetime devotion. This collection of books is the single, most widely published volume in the entire world because it is the single, most widely purchased collection of books in the entire world. Ironically, it is also the single, most widely neglected collection of books in the entire world. This collection of books bound in a single volume is, of course, the Bible.

It is the Holy Scripture, the religious canon (or law), the very voice of the Living God. It is the divine Voice that tells the story of redemption from Genesis to The Revelation. It tells the many stories of human failure upon human failure, yet it also tells us the stories of how these same people - in spite of their failures - were able to reach far beyond their own human capacities. It teaches us through the failures of these same people throughout human history that in the midst of the most profound despair and the most colossal failures, we may still dare to have and to share hope.

Many contemporary interpretations have suggested that these books, written thousands of years ago, are little more than "antiquities" written specifically for people of "antiquity". There are suggestions that these books give us a glimpse of the past but have no real application for the present and no real use for the future.

Well, I happen to agree.
• I agree that the Bible is useless for all those who read it with preconceived expectations and personal demands.
• I agree that the Bible is useless for those who are not willing to read with an open mind and an open heart.
• I agree that the Bible is useless for those many who see no need to study the Scripture in fellowship as a supplement to private study and prayer.
• I agree that the Bible is useless for those who are interested in no opinions or perspectives other than their own.
• And I absolutely agree that the Bible as a tool and as a means for spiritual transformation is useless to those who see no need for personal, spiritual transformation.

So what is the Bible good for? It is good for "doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient and equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

In the book, Mapping Christian Education, essayist and professor of educational ministry Elizabeth Caldwell, points to the process of Christian education as similar to that of "homemaking".
• The home is our sanctuary.
• It is our safe place.
• It is where we are most comfortable, where we are nurtured and corrected, where we are comforted and admonished.
• The home is where we are related, fed, and made whole.
• It is where we are intimately connected in spite of those things that may potentially separate us.
• The home is where we emphasize the connectedness rather than the divisiveness.
• The home is where guests are welcome and encouraged to make themselves "at home" as we strive to make them feel "at home" - that is "radical hospitality".
• Home is the place where "growing" is central and entirely dependent on the support structure and the values instilled.
• But the home is also the place in which habits are formed by experiential environments and learning models. This is to say, it must necessarily be where interaction - not pontification - is encouraged and practiced without fear and without reproach.
• Home is the place where every soul has a genuine stake in the nurture, support, and upkeep of the home.

It is by and through this process and environment of "homemaking" that the study of Scripture comes nearer to functioning as the "means of grace" disciples need most because this is where we should feel safe. We recognize our differences, but we also acknowledge that we are in the presence of our Master, our Teacher, and our Holy Father. We realize and appreciate His ultimate authority, but we also remember that Jesus loved to teach by parables. Why? Because He surely knew such parables would provoke questions but would also have real, practical application. He needed us to know that everyday living is everyday theology, that everything we do and everything we say is theological - that is, we are intimately connected with the Lord through His Word in daily living. Or we are not.

It is too bad that in efforts to "beat back" secular or liberal or humanist challenges to religious ideals and values, we have chosen to use the Bible as a "weapon" of force rather than as a "means of grace". While it is true enough, as written in 2 Timothy, that Scripture is divinely inspired specifically for "instruction and correction", it is equally true that the world is filled with people, Christians and non-Christians alike, who are victimized, mistreated, and oppressed - whether they are believers or not.

While Jesus seems to emphasize persecution for His followers at the hands of those who did then - and still do now - oppose Him, we should not overlook the many who suffer equally through oppression and loss. Clearly Jesus is teaching us something through these so-called "Beatitudes", and it is equally clear that as we are comforted by the Word we are also called forth by that same Word. The "inner" part of our being is being transformed by Scripture study, but the transformation must necessarily manifest itself in outward expression - to comfort those who mourn, to fill those who are thirsty and hungry, to be merciful toward those who do not know what mercy looks like.

It must necessarily be the same transformation which took place in the early Church after Pentecost when new believers "continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship" (Acts 2:42). In other words, new believers didn't just "make things up" as to whatever seemed best to suit their individual preferences - and as a result of this hunger and this faith, the Church flourished, and THOUSANDS were added to the ranks of the baptized faithful.

Jesus is making promises to those who will listen to Him but if we were to dare listen more carefully, we would hear Jesus saying that the time of fulfillment of these promises is much nearer than we might think - and that the point of fulfillment will come at the hands of the faithful whose outward expression of the inner transformation will burst forth! But if none of this comes about, if there is no inner transformation and no outward expression of such transformation, then the Bible is reduced to "ancient literature" and can be filed on a shelf near Plato's Republic ... useful and interesting, but not necessary.

I was recently trying to answer a theology question for an 11-year-old, and I have to say it was probably the hardest thing I've ever tried to do. Not only did I have to adjust my language, but I finally had to realize there is no way that important question can be answered in one or two statements. It was a loaded theological question with broad implications. I finally came to realize it is ok for me to stop at a particular point in order to be age-appropriate, but the lesson must not stop there ... for this child OR for me because while the answer was adequate for the moment and the stage of spiritual development, it must also be a moment that moves into the next ... perpetually.

In order for the study of Scripture to serve as the necessary "means of grace", we have to be fully engaged not only in receiving but in connecting beyond ourselves. Grace comes only from the Lord - not from any book, not even the Bible. But the Bible is His instruction, His Law, His unmistakable Voice. Thinking, speaking, and acting outside of what is written for our edification and for the building up of the Holy Church means we are left with little else than to listen to other voices, many voices, conflicting voices ... until we are finally left confused and alienated; fully connected to the vain wisdom of the world, but alienated from the divine Voice and source of all wisdom.

Holy Scripture is our connection to our past, our present, our future - because it is our connection to our Lord. It is necessary for spiritual growth. Like Holy Communion and Confirmation, it is most appropriately shared not only for building up the individual disciple but also for building up and uniting the Church as the Body of Christ. It is by experiential learning - that is, interaction - that discipleship begins to make sense. It is where the journey of faith begins - within the Church - and it is where the journey of faith is passed from one generation to the next. Absent this intimate connection, the Gospel of the Lord, the Word of the Living God, is but one generation from extinction.

Everyone needs someone. I may not agree with each of you on a particular point of doctrine but I need you in order to continue to grow, and you need me for the same reason. But above all else, the unbelieving world needs the INFORMED and UNIFORM Body of Christ. One God, One Lord, One Word, One Church. To the Glory of our Holy God and Father and to the "comfort of those who mourn", to "fill those who are hungry for righteousness", through Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.

To Confirm; to Live

Matthew 7:13-20

The first time I realized childhood was coming to an end was when there was no longer recess at school. Oh, what a sad day! What a cruel joke!! No one had warned us the year before that this time would come! The time for wide-eyed optimism was over, and we were about to be thrust into the "real" work of school. No more gold stars or hugs from the teacher; just "A's", "B's", and so on. We were still children, of course, but something had changed and would never be the same again.

In many cultures around the world, civilized and not-so-civilized, this is about the same stage of development when children make that awkward transition from childhood and take the first concrete steps toward adulthood. There is only one thing which still exists and which existed from the very beginning: we do not stop being members of our families. For good or bad, we are still who we were born to be and we are still identified by the families we were born into whether we are estranged from these families or not. For good or bad, we will always have that foundation from which we must necessarily grow. We began to take our own steps.

And these steps we take would have all the blessings - AND all the trappings - of our past. Even if we can look upon our childhood with regrets and certain bitterness as most of us can, we cannot escape the reality of where we presently are and where we will go from here. And we must also acknowledge the certain reality that at some point the journey stops being about our past but, rather, our future - which is to say, we make our own decisions, enjoy our own rewards, and suffer our own consequences.

Confirmation as a practice in many Christian traditions is typically reserved only for those children who had previously been baptized into the Covenant. Confirmation, in simple terms, is that time when children are supposed to take their first concrete steps toward declaring and living their own faith rather than the faith of their parents. And if the family, both biological and church, has done its job these children will be ready for such a colossal step. It is much like the bar or bat mitzvah of the Jewish tradition. Mitzvah being "commandment" and "bar" or "bat" being "son" or "daughter", the declaration being made is that one becomes a "son or daughter of the commandment" which means: I will be responsible for my actions to my God. In the Jewish tradition, parents are no longer accountable to the Lord for the sins of their children.

Confirmation is not typically associated with the "means of grace" we are more familiar with, and outside the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches it is not considered a "sacrament" of the Church. However, if we understand "sacramental" as "divine encounter", we must understand confirmation as standing before the Lord and making our own declaration of faith and allegiance. At the time of confirmation we become responsible disciples accountable to the Lord for our own lives. What we choose to do from that moment is entirely up to us.

Is it a matter of being "saved", declaring the Lord as our very own "personal" Lord? No, it reaches far beyond and becomes a purposeful, intentional, life-time commitment to discipleship. At confirmation we have not been "saved" FROM anything - rather, we are committing TO something much greater than ourselves. It is at this moment when we come to realize it is no longer about "me" or "personal" salvation. It is when we come to realize this "personal" Lord and Savior is not our very "own" to be kept only to ourselves.

In addition to being responsible for the proclamation of the Gospel, the Church is also charged with the awesome task and responsibility for continued support for these confirmands especially including those who have fallen away from the Church. It is indeed by grace we have been saved, but it is by commitment that we are strengthened each day for the next day's challenges. It is by baptism as a Sacrament of the Church that the Lord claims us; it is by confirmation that we claim the Lord and commit ourselves to His service in the Church and in the world. We can deny it, of course, but we cannot alter the spiritual reality.

But what of those who fall away from the discipline of the Church? There are many so-called "spiritual" Christians who have intentionally moved away because they reject the notion of "organized" religion as necessary to salvation, and they absolutely reject the concept of "discipline" that necessarily comes from the Church. What they fail to realize, however, is that "sanctification" - that is, the intentional pursuit of holiness - is a must, and discipline is a necessary component of the Church, particularly in the Wesleyan Methodist tradition by which we show genuine care and concern for one another and the necessary spiritual journey.

We have deliberately and with the most noble of intentions created a Membership Care Committee here at Asbury because we believe in Confirmation, we believe in accountability, we believe in the necessary discipline of the Church, and most importantly of all, we believe in each other and the strength that comes in numbers. We absolutely believe in this necessary action just as surely as we absolutely know that people who fall away from the Church and her discipline altogether are on a dangerous journey in choosing the "wide and broad way that leads to destruction".

Membership care teams, known as "discipling groups", will be making contact very soon with each and every active member of this church. As these groups expand and become even stronger - and I believe they will - they will be calling on members of this church who have fallen away, and these "fallen" will be lovingly challenged to account for their unfortunate and spiritually dangerous choice to go it alone. These "fallen" members will soon discover that "discipline" and "accountability" are not angry words with negative connotations. They will RE-discover, instead, that these very words were active in the loving care and concern they got from their parents not to punish them but to prepare them, to teach them, to correct them, of course, and to guide them.

There is no greater statement of neglect and lack of concern for one's well-being than to be left alone. Parents who neglect their children are in trouble with the law, and they should be! Should there be any less a punishable offense by the Lord's hands than to neglect members of our own church "family"? How is an unbelieving community to trust any "family" that cannot be trusted to care for its own??

A contact visit from these discipling groups will be "confirmation" that you are loved. An invitation from these discipling groups will be "confirmation" that you are missed. An invitation from these discipling groups will be "confirmation" that you are needed. Above all else, an invitation from these discipling groups will be "confirmation" that you ... are ... loved.

Confirmation as a "means of grace" must not be strictly limited to prepubescent boys and girls as a singular event, merely treated as a one-time-only bridge that must be crossed. Confirmation is, instead, a moment of accountability that will never end - for if it does actually cease to exist as a daily practice in the life of the Church, it will be the final nail in the coffin, the statement of the "confirmation" that the Church as the very Body of Christ no longer exists within us.

Play time is over. It is no longer "someone else's" responsibility to see to the business of discipleship. I believe life itself has been confirmed in so many ways but now that we have become the "good fruit" ourselves, it is time for us to being bearing "good fruit" for the Kingdom of Heaven. The Lord does not ask this of us - He requires it of His Holy Church, He commands it of those who call Him "Lord", and He promises everlasting Life to those who partake.

So let us partake. Amen.

Only One Thing

1 Corinthians 1:10-18

It was pointed out to me recently - and my wife affirmed it - that I have a bad habit of using a $20 word when a $2 word would work just as well. I have to admit that if I discover anything that will annoy my wife, it is not likely I'll give it up anytime soon! It's my "dignified" way of flirting with her! Still, as a preacher who does not always proclaim the word to Ph.d types, it is important that I am more careful in the words I choose to make the same point: that the Gospel of the Lord is Light and Life. Live the Gospel, share the Gospel, preach the Gospel; and live in Light and Life Eternal.

The other night my son-in-law told me that he and my daughter had recently had a visit from the local Mormon missionaries, so he began asking me questions about the Latter-Day Saints, the Book of Mormon, and Mormonism in general. I cannot say I can speak the lingo, but there are some unique features of the Mormon faith I'm at least familiar with. Whether I agree with these particular features, however, is another story and far beyond the point.

The last visit I had at my home from two young missionaries began as simply as it could possibly begin. They smiled, looked me in the eye, and asked if I was aware that Jesus had died for my sins. That's it. It really was that simple - and genuine, I think. There was earnestness about them, their facial expressions, and the way they stood, but it was not the earnestness of a "recruiter" who was trying to make a quota. It was the enthusiasm of a genuine disciple who really wanted to be sure I was aware of my redemption.

That opening line alone caught me off guard because the typical door visits I've gotten from other groups usually begins with asking me if I'm "saved" or if I'm aware that the world is coming to an end. The word "saved" seems simple enough and it is fairly common Protestant language most Christians understand, but there is a difference here that I had not really appreciated until the Mormons knocked me off my balance and out of my comfort zone.

We had a very nice visit. I invited them in to sit for awhile, and we talked about religion, faith, orthodox Christianity (a very general description of American Christianity), and Mormonism; and they were as inquisitive to me as a United Methodist pastor as I was to them as Mormon missionaries. Though there were obviously some finer points of doctrine we differed on, there was no real "disagreement" in that one tried to correct or persuade the other. Their message was simple and inarguable: Christ Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

St. Paul was obviously answering a question that had been put to him by the Corinthian church he had established. Paul's answer indicates that within the church in Corinth (more likely several church "houses") there were more points of division rather than points of unification - and misguided loyalties. It is not unlike the many churches of Magnolia AR in which one church may belong to Pope Benedict, others may belong to Martin Luther, while still others may belong to John Wesley or John Calvin.

The doctrines and practices we have embraced over the years - actually, over the centuries - came to us from one source or another and usually as various interpretations of the same scriptural text. Within any given text there is this opinion or that perspective, and we often mistakenly refer to someone in the historic past as the ultimate authoritative figure. Worse than this, we make demands of those who do not agree with us, causing further divisions and doing little more than alienating people from the Church.

Now there does not seem to be any real harm in such human, historical references. Over time we have pretty much insisted that our clergy be reasonably educated not only in the Bible and church doctrine but also in history and philosophy. All these disciplines combine with others to offer a perspective that can help to restore a soul to the Lord or to re-energize the complacent souls of the faithful. Either way will bear the same fruit - as long as we keep the main thing the Main Thing.

The missionaries who came to my door were not asking if I was aware of a generic religion that taught about and worshipped some generic "god"; these missionaries wanted to know specifically if I was actively and actually aware that it took the tortuous death of Jesus to make possible my spiritual reconciliation with the one, true, and living God of all creation. They wanted to know if I was aware not of their church but of OUR GOD and Holy Father. They wanted me to know that a Sacrifice had been made specifically in my behalf and in the behalf of so many others.

Even when I identified myself as a United Methodist pastor, they did not try to challenge Methodist doctrine or my personal beliefs. It was, purely and simply, only about Christ. And when it became clear there were points of doctrine in which we disagreed, they made sure the main thing remained the Main Thing: salvation through faith.

There is no more "eloquent" message that can be shared. Divisions, dissensions, and debate all have their proper places and can serve as useful tools to more fully engage non-believers in active conversations about the Lord, but if these points of doctrinal disagreement become the primary focus of the engagement, then it is as St. Paul fretted about with the Corinthians: "The cross of Christ might ... be emptied of its power".

It is the Good News, Life-giving power of the Gospel of the Lord that is - and must always remain - the Main Thing whether we are talking to fellow Christians from other denominations, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Muslims, or non-believers. It does not really matter much where we or they come from; it matters much more where we are all headed and whether we will choose to persevere together in one common purpose: "to proclaim the Gospel" - regardless of the cost.

It does not require an educated mind or "eloquent wisdom" to make sure people are aware of the Gospel, and I'm not so sure we are required to make sure folks "believe" the way we think they should "believe". We need only to help them to "knock" as Jesus tells us to "knock" so that the Holy Spirit will open the door for them. From there the Lord will make sure they know what He needs them to know - rather than what we think they ought to know. We need only to make the introduction, by way of His Gospel, to that which we do know to be true: that Christ has died, that Christ is risen, and that Christ will come again. To the glory of God the Father and for the sake of our immortal souls.

Baptism: pathway to the Cross

Matthew 3:7-17

In light of the renewed commitment to the Covenant we made to the Lord and to one another a couple of weeks ago, now is a good time to begin a new series to explore the Wesleyan understanding of grace, the "means of grace", and how grace translates through these means. By and through our Methodist heritage we grow in and explore the blessings of prevenient grace, justifying grace, and sanctifying grace - the Lord meeting us and speaking to us at various stages in our spiritual development as we learn to see the world through His eyes, becoming more and more Christ-like in our daily living, seeking wholeness in unity with the Holy Spirit.

We need to understand the nature of divine grace and what it means to us in terms of how we navigate an unbelieving world as filled with goodness and beauty as it is with evil and injustice. It is necessary for us to understand that coming into the Lord's grace does not mean problems will magically disappear, nor does it mean we are granted "excuses" for our un-Christ-like, immoral, and unrepentant behavior. Instead, we come to understand that through His grace we are assisted by the Holy Spirit who is imparted to us through covenant and continues to speak to us through diligent prayer, Scripture study, public worship, and other means of grace. By this grace we are empowered to resist evil and other temptations that serve only to separate us from the Lord; and by this grace to actively work toward justice for those to whom justice has been denied. These and other works of piety and mercy are the fruits of the Holy Spirit made manifest in the life of the Church through divine grace.

It all begins at baptism, the sign and mark of the New Covenant in Christ, the outward expression of an inward grace, the means by which we are symbolically yet spiritually washed cleaned, young and old alike. The power of the Lord to forgive sins through baptism is a mystery to us because there is obviously not enough water in the world to cleanse the soul, but we must also understand there is much more than water that comes into play when one is baptized into the Covenant and into the Church.

Baptism is one of the two "means of grace", or acts of piety, embraced by the United Methodist Church as sacramental (the other is Holy Communion), sacramental being understood as evidence of the Lord's giving of Himself by His actual presence. Through the Sacraments of the Church we celebrate these divine moments in eternity when the Lord touches the human soul in an unmistakable way. It is sad that these two practices of the Church universal are more often "flash points" of conflict and misunderstanding than they are moments and means of comfort and unity, but they are unmistakably biblical as practices of the Lord Jesus Himself; sanctioned, sanctified, and ordained in His Body the Church for all time and for all who would call Him "Lord".

In order to explore the sacramental nature of baptism, is it necessary to compare and evaluate the various practices and traditions in order to find the one we like and dismiss those we don't? Not really; the reason being that the nature of such evaluation puts way too much stock in the doctrines and individual beliefs of man. It is much more helpful to consider the theology and commonalities of the various practices and, ultimately, the common denominator; that element of baptism which finally and completely acknowledges the Lord Himself as the only means by which one is washed clean and made new. We also understand that, like Holy Communion, there can be nothing "private" about it because the whole congregation takes part. Baptism is a public declaration indeed, but the greater question to us might be: who is making the declaration?

John's baptism was one of repentance as a means by which to prepare for the presence of the Lord's Anointed, as it is written, and we can clearly see the many who came to John to receive this baptism of repentance in preparation for the Lord's actual presence. It is a mistake, however, to believe that what John was doing was somehow new. It is not reasonable to suggest John the Baptist just "made it up" solely for the coming of Jesus anymore than it is reasonable to suggest that small children were not also part of "all Judea" who came to present themselves. The practice of baptism as a means of purification is not strictly a New Testament idea, nor is its practice strictly reserved for the River Jordan - or any river, for that matter.

There are many OT references to the Lord's command to be "sanctified" (washed, purified) before entering into His presence on the holy mountain, in the Tent of Meeting, or in the Temple itself. Yet Jesus, the One who was without sin and had no need to repent, also presented Himself to be baptized, to be "sanctified", to be "purified"? Why? The answer, of course, is recorded for us: "to fulfill all righteousness". Fair enough, but what does this really mean? And how is such a statement translated to us here and now in the 21st-century Church when and where Christianity is not exactly new?

And here is where we get stuck in the past. In the context in which Matthew's account is written, Christianity has yet to be born as a religion. A Jewish culture with Jewish practices which means all the little boys are likely already "marked" with the sign of Abraham's covenant is the contextual setting. This means a covenant is already established, and children are already being raised in households marked and identified as households of faith within that covenant. That same context does not apply in the 21st century because Christianity is not new.

In Matthew's account there are two important elements involved. One is the obvious common act of "Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan" who presented themselves for sanctification: repentance; "to prepare the way of the Lord, to make His path straight", to make one worthy of the divine Presence. The other element that is clearly present is the Holy Spirit "descending like a dove", but it is a mistake to believe it took an act or even the faith of man to make that moment possible or even likely.

The Lord was at work in Jeremiah's life before he was born, even before he was "formed in the womb" (Jeremiah 1:5). This is what Wesleyan Methodism teaches about "prevenient grace". The Lord is already and perpetually at work in every single life that is formed in the womb - without exception. It so happens Jeremiah was "ordained as a prophet". Obviously we are not all prophets, but we are all unmistakably "ordained"; set apart for the Lord's good purposes long before we are even aware of His presence. It is in this vein that United Methodism, like many other traditions, has retained the practice of infant baptism for centuries. It is in that divine moment when new life, young AND old, is proclaimed by the Church and given to the Lord through His Covenant.

As it pertains to human practices, we must acknowledge there is no way - NO WAY - humans will ever "get it right" or "do it right" because it is not ours to "do" or to "get". It is ours only to respond. And because we are admonished that "it is impossible to please the Lord [without faith]" (Hebrews 11:6), it necessarily falls to us to respond "in faith" without holding anything or anyone back, especially our children, because the Covenant belongs to the Lord alone. It is His eternal Promise that ALL are invited into His Household, but the invitation must be answered in and on His terms. It is parallel to the reality of the Cross; we cannot have Christ without the Cross - nor can we have part in His Covenant without actually being in the Covenant. It is not unlike the terms of a contract. The contract's owner sets forth the terms of the contract, and other parties must enter into that contract ON ITS TERMS as set forth ... or not at all. The contract does not apply to any who are outside that contract.

This is a Promise you and I can surely embrace only if we can put aside the inconsistent practices of humanity and give it all over to the Lord where it belongs. How dare any human suggest that a child - or ANYONE who lacks the capacity to speak or otherwise communicate in his or her own behalf - cannot be baptized into the Lord's Covenant; such a declaration presumes that the Lord cannot or will not act until or unless He is cued or summoned by man! Baptism as a sacrament is an act of the Lord, not the will of man. Jesus Himself said, "You did not choose Me; I chose you" (John 15:16).

The Baptists are not "right", the Catholics are not "right", nor are the Methodists "right". It is the Lord alone who is "right" and Righteous, and it is that divine righteousness we are being baptized into! It is the Lord's Promise to give and to give freely. It is the prevenient act of the Lord to bring Light into darkness, to bring order from chaos as He has from the beginning - all without man's permission! It is a Promise we must necessarily affirm often and be always mindful of - as the Body of Christ and as disciples, for we are covenanted with Him to follow Him all the days of our lives ... all the way to the Cross. And beyond.

The Revolutionary Gene Pool: it's who we are

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred - right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." - Abraham Lincoln

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." - US Declaration of Independence

Though it is hard to imagine such foresight, we now have exactly the kind of society envisioned by the founders of this republic. The government, however, may be another story. What was a tragedy and a criminal act in the Tucson AZ shootings has become a political flash point. Democrats and Republicans, news media and bloggers, and just about everyone in between has tried to capture this horrendous moment and use it as an opportunity to do little more than to advance a political agenda. Even worse, there are actually members of Congress who have dared to suggest the need for federal regulations to curb "hate speech", failing to realize that by their very rhetoric they are only adding fuel to an already out-of-control fire.

US Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY, according to Foxnews.com, made reference to former Senate candidate Sharron Angle's call to employ "2nd amendment remedies" in suggesting a change in the "nation's political dialogue - by will or by law". Since the congresswoman's comments indicate a lack of "will" on her part, it seems clear she is suggesting the law as a remedy to control ... what? Free speech? There is, even now, a free speech decision pending before the US Supreme Court involving one of the most hateful crews in the United States - the Westboro Baptist Church folks who have made a name for themselves in picketing the funerals of service members killed in action and who will be picketing funerals in Arizona. Does this congresswoman even read the news?

If it is true that the Republican-controlled US House will require that all bills meet a constitutional standards and citation requirement, it would be interesting to see how a member of this same Congress would attempt to side-step that requirement or justify the need to ignore such constitutional mandates. Like it or not, our constitution requires that this congresswoman - and every member of the US Congress - as per her oath of office, to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America". This Constitution is, in fact, THE rule of law especially as it pertains to the limits of power within the federal government, limits this Congress has clearly exceeded for many years now.

Further federal restrictions on the purchase of guns will also fall short given that gun ownership has been deemed a "right" by the US Supreme Court as specifically outlined in this same Constitution. It is ironic that the militia to which the 2nd amendment refers has its grounding and reasoning in the need for a militia to help protect the community from an overbearing government, and it is an existing overbearing government that would move to take these guns from their lawful owners.

This nation was founded not on principle but on revolution. This nation traded one tax for another, one king for another, one set of laws for another, and it was done with the full knowledge that the Crown of England would not let the Declaration go unanswered. So we fought; and with the aid of the French, we won our coveted independence from England - and immediately moved to surrender our independence a little at a time to what is now a government that has far exceeded King George's reach.

There was a day, as Sarah Palin recently mentioned, when political disputes were settled by dueling pistols. We have grown a little since then and have become a little more civilized, but not by much. The Tea Party influence has been a continuing thorn in the side of the Democrats and others who believe the federal government can solve all problems by regulation and it has been accused of enflaming political rhetoric, but it might be more appropriate to suggest that this overbearing government that is far from "the people" has earned the challenge that goes back to the principles of this nation's founding: "exercising their right ... their duty to throw off such government" not by armed insurrection but by the ballot box.

This nation can be said to have come full-circle from its founding. A need for less government intrusion has been identified, and "revolution" has been justified. For the time being, it is only the means by which revolution is employed that has changed. The end has become necessary.

Can a Nation Repent?

"The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people He has chosen as His own inheritance."- Psalm 33:10-12

The psalmist was clearly referring to Israel as the "nation whose God is the Lord", and those "nations" and "peoples" who are brought to "nothing" and "of no effect" as those who stood in opposition to Israel. The prayer and sentiment expressed in the psalm, however, has been brought forward and used in reference to the "beacon of hope" that is the United States. It is the evangelical Christian's raised banner in expressions of hope for this nation and all she stands for - or once stood for. Yet this nation's "Christian heritage" is questionable as a matter of history not because of the many Christians who did come to the "new world" in search of religious liberty and mission opportunities nor the many Christians who were major players in this nation's founding and heritage; but because this nation's founding document is unspecific toward a particular deity beyond "nature's God" or humanity's "Creator", and this nation's legal foundation and document is completely bereft of a specific religion, faith, or deity. None of this is to suggest there is no foundation for "Christian heritage". Rather, it is to suggest that the Jeffersonian concept of the separation of Church and state either went too far or not far enough.

Patrick Henry is quoted as having said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."

The people of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka KS continue to insist that "for this very reason" (diversity, I mean) the nation that is America is doomed unless we repent. Speaking strictly for myself, there is hardly a day which passes that I am not reminded of my desperate need to continue the work of "sanctification", that spiritual process by which I am enabled to grow a little more faithful each day and strengthened to put aside the things that separate me from the Lord much in the way we raise our own children a little at a time. It is utterly unfair to ignore our children during their formative years and then suddenly expect them to know or understanding anything. When it comes to genuine wisdom there is no such thing as "common sense", much as we would like to believe our individual beliefs should be shared by all.

The question is asked, then: can a nation repent? And how would one define the nation? Is it the people that make a nation? Is it the government "of the people" that constitutes a nation? In comparing Israel and the psalmist's prayer to today's practical applicability, can such a diversified United States be fairly compared to Israel; or would a more appropriate application be made toward the Church, especially in defining "the people He has chosen"?

Given the current state of this nation, its government (and the Church, for that matter), and the direction in which we seem to be headed, the need for repentance (that is, a change of direction and heart) is absolute. Christians would not disagree with this general premise, but Christians will obviously disagree (as we do already) on what new direction will serve humanity best. Clearly there are the liberal Christians who seem to suggest that if it feels good, go ahead and do it. Just be sure to "love" someone along the way (tongue firmly in cheek). Those of a more conservative bent would just as generally require a return to the Lord and the Bible; just be sure to "hate a sin" along the way (forked tongue firmly in both cheeks). The one thing I believe conservative and liberal Christians can agree upon, however, is that the folks of Westboro are just plain wrong to picket funerals. We might also agree there is no more effective means to get the most attention than this even as the means is highly questionable, and especially if it is the Gospel of the Lord one claims to profess! There was a time when the Gospel meant "Good News".

So to repent as in changing direction, would we call the nation to run toward the Gospel or away from the Judgment? What is the determining factor, and how does a "nation" go about it? How do we all get on the same bus and go in the same direction with a common sense of purpose? The greater question, however, is toward deciding whether the Bible in any form or fashion is speaking to the extremely diversified nation of America or the Church to which Americans are called. One thing is clear; the human race itself cannot survive the current course.

The Opened Door

So it has begun. A national tragedy involving the best - and the worst - of America has taken place, and the news media (if it can be called "news") have begun to make haste in trying to make more out of the Arizona shooting than there actually is. On the surface it seems simple: a person lost his mind, and others have been made to suffer for his instability ... or his ideology, depending on what one will draw from this senseless tragedy.

One particular commentary began as a decent piece about the need to refrain from "pointing fingers" in response to the "vitriolic politics" mentioned by the Pima County AZ sheriff, but the writer suddenly began pointing his own finger by subtly mentioning that such a toxic political atmosphere began during the Bush administration and has been ramped up by Republicans since the election of President Obama. How's that for not pointing fingers? And is he kidding? Can he or any other American seriously believe politics was in any way "nice" before President GW Bush? To quote former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, "Are you serious? Are you serious?"

The AZ sheriff opened a door with his political commentary, but it may have seemed a natural progression since one among the wounded is a member of the US Congress and does seem to have been the intended target. However, does this necessarily change the nature of the shooting from "tragedy" and "criminal" to "political" or even "ideological", regardless of the shooter's intent? The question left for the news media (again, a loosely applied term of reference) and for thinking Americans is: do we go through that door? And if we do, what will we hope to accomplish?

Sadly, too many have virtually rushed through the door in an effort to blame Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and other conservative commentators which has brought sharp responses from the more conservative side. It seems to me it is the media itself that have taken a criminal act perpetrated by a lone shooter and created for themselves an ideological jump-off point to make themselves and their insidious remarks seem plausible.

There is little doubt politicians make stupid and rash comments in an effort to be in the news, but notice, dear readers and thinkers, that it is the media perpetuating the toxicity. It's what we get when we go through the door left open.

Getting it Right

Matthew 25:14-30
A genuine commitment to anything is total, not trivial; and discipleship is demanding, yet not domineering. But discipleship is not "easy" by biblical or social standards and Jesus makes this abundantly clear, yet pastors and preachers and even many of the laity hold back for fear of creating yet another empty pew or being labeled as a "zealot", a "Jesus freak", a "holy roller", or a "narrow-minded bigot". Mature Christians need the "solid food" that is discipleship, but "milk" seems far more abundant, much easier to acquire, and easier still to digest by the many even as the Bible teaches Christians that "though by this time you ought to be teachers, [yet] you need someone to teach you again ... for everyone who lives on milk ... is unskilled in the word of righteousness ... solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil" (Hebrews 5:12-14). In other words, a committed life of discipleship.

Cheap grace, as the "milk" to which the writer of Hebrews may be referring, is defined by the 20th-century theologian Dietrich Bonheoffer as "the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, grace without discipleship, grace without the Cross, [in short] grace without Christ. It is to hear the Gospel preached as follows: Of course you have sinned, but now everything is forgiven so you can stay as you are and enjoy the consolations of forgiveness."

Conversely, Bonheoffer offers his definition and understanding of what is "costly" [yet genuine] grace: "It confronts us as a gracious call to follow Christ; it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. It is costly because it compels a [person] to submit to the yoke and follow [Christ]. [Yet] it is grace because Jesus says: 'My yoke is easy, and My burden is light' ... our humanitarian sentiment made us give that which is holy to the scornful and unbelieving [in other words, excuses] ... but the call to follow Jesus in the 'narrow way' was hardly ever heard."

The restructuring, the rethinking, the reordering, the restoring of the United Methodist Church must necessarily go beyond making the organizational Church more efficient; it will require that the "movement" Methodism once was to become more effective in making disciples of Christ. It is - indeed it must be - about the reinvigoration of what it was about in the 18th century at its founding: saving souls, shaking Christians out of their spiritual complacency (i.e. 'making disciples'). The movement which began as a "Holy Club" and grew into arguably one of the greatest movements in the history of the Church was a movement within the Church that required but one thing for entry into membership: an earnest desire to 'flee from the wrath to come' (i.e., 'milk'). To maintain membership, however, went a step further: it required a willingness to be held accountable and a willingness to hold others accountable to the demands of discipleship (i.e., 'solid food').

What is unique about the Methodist movement, as opposed to the Protestant Reformation, is what it sought to achieve and what it hoped to recapture rather than "reform". The Methodist movement was based on the model of the 1st-century Church after Pentecost. It was not about finding a better church or a more pleasing pastor or an easier Gospel; rather, it was entirely about the disciple's total commitment to Christ through the Church. It was about "being" and "doing" Church; that is, "being" the Body of Christ and "doing" His will rather than one's own.

In the meantime, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's voice continues to call from a time when the Nazi Party was rising to power and the Church was painfully silent in the face of one of the greatest tragedies of human history: the Holocaust. The destructive power of evil which was apparent in Adolf Hitler's "Final Solution" had successfully silenced the complacent Church and had driven Her underground. The late Simon Wiesenthal, the "Nazi Hunter" and Holocaust survivor, posed this question in his book, "The Sunflower": Who is more guilty of this crime against humanity; the one who directly committed the crimes, or the one who witnessed it but stood by in silence?

During this dark period millions of innocent men, women, and children were enslaved and tortured, used as forced labor and as subjects of medical experiments that explored, for instance, the human threshold for pain by unspeakable means, or they were just plain exterminated. Sixty years later the Church apologized but did not quite repent because the deafening silence that comes from the Church even today is still apparent in failing or refusing to speak to that which matters above all else: the totality of our commitment to the Lord which is directly linked to how we will ultimately be judged, as illustrated by Jesus' Parable of the Talents - whether we as His servants will use what He entrusts us with in this life to His Glory in order to prove whether we can be trusted in the Life to Come. Or whether we take what He offers in that one brief moment in our lives ... and then bury it so that no one else can see ... thus denying the Lord a return on His "investment", a return He obviously expects and demands.

Yet being a Christian church member in the United States has become much easier than anything else we might undertake because we can "shop" around and find a more palpable Gospel that does not overwhelm us or ask more than we are willing to give. We can find a preacher who will tickle our ears and tell us all about being "saved", we can find a music leader who will entertain us, and we can find a church that will affirm what we have already convinced ourselves to be true: that commitment is to self-satisfaction, self-indulgence, and self-realization; to be the best "me" I can possibly be. "Sacrifice" in the context of what the Church is and WHO the Church is, is a foreign concept, merely a word that works well as it fills a gap in the sermon but rarely translates to what it means to be a disciple of Christ, what it means to follow Jesus all the way to the Cross.

We can say we already know what "commitment" means and what "commitment" requires. We are committed to our jobs, we are committed to our money, and we are committed to our families and friends; if we are not, we will lose them all. We are committed to and willing to sacrifice for most anything that offers to us a direct benefit of pleasure, happiness, comfort, and personally satisfactory (and immediate and tangible) results.

We define our lives by what is most satisfying according to our own standards as well as the standards imposed upon us by a secular society that knows less and less about the Bible and the demands of discipleship (and clearly does not care to know more) and yet continues to redefine - and often rewrite - the Gospel according to where we already are and who we have chosen to become. In the midst of such flagrant individualism, the Church as the Body of Christ is torn asunder because the commitment is "to each his own" rather than to the community, the Church which is the Body of Christ - not the several. In such individualism there is no commonality, no community, no sense of divine purpose ... no Church; maybe a chapel, but more likely a private chapel suitable only for those who neatly fit in - IF they bother to come in at all.

Submitting oneself to the Lordship of Christ and committing oneself to the life of discipleship is not simply a matter of escaping the Judgment, for the Bible tells us clearly the Judgment will come - we just don't know when the Master will return and demand an accounting. And because we cannot be sure of when He will return, we cannot be sure He will find us standing firmly with Him and working for and through Him when He does return; not if in our complacency we can take discipleship or leave it; whether we would choose "milk" or "solid food".

We all have problems and needs to one extent or another. There are those who do not have enough money just to get by, and there are those who have so much money they feel no need for Christ; they've become a little too comfortable. And then there are those "in-betweeners" who have a difficult time finding their footing because they are standing on the "shifting sands" of social secular standards, and the Church has been more a part of the problem rather than the Source of the solution.

Christians must be devoted and committed to Christ through His Body, the Holy Church. There are no short-cuts and there are no easy answers because the term "back-sliding" that Methodism is so familiar with is not simply a matter of turning to a life of evil; it is a term more appropriately applicable to complacency and delegation; that act by which we attempt to "delegate" discipleship responsibilities to "someone" who never seems to be around. But I am going to tell you what I used to tell those who worked for me in my previous life: when we become aware of a problem, that problem has become our own. It cannot be passed on to "someone" because "someone" is never around; "someone" always fades away especially when a problem presents itself.

This is no less true in discipleship and in matters of the Holy Church. We know there are problems out there and we obviously cannot solve them all, but we can no longer afford to ignore them because they always have a way of coming back to us. Always. And it is important to carefully read Matthew's account of the Parable of the Talents. "To each according to his ability"; it does not say "according to 'will' or 'desire'".

There is not one among us who can escape this clause because each of us has been spiritually equipped; young and old, rich and poor, black and white, male and female. We are inherently connected by the common image in which we were all created. We do not all have the same abilities, obviously, but we each have some ability and we must all have the same sense of purpose: TO GROW THE CHURCH, to make disciples. To encourage one another, and to love our neighbors into the Body of Christ, not support or contribute to their useless excuses. To not only meet them where they are, but to lead them out of the darkness which has enveloped them and into the Light of Christ.

Before we can do this, however, we must embrace our commonality. We must embrace our abilities and appreciate what the Lord has given us ... FOR HIS GLORY rather than our own comfort and sense of personal assurance. I am begging you to wake up and realize the time is short and the End is unknown to us all. The Lord loves you - I hope you know this - but our commitment to Him through discipleship is our response to that Love. There is nothing else to "get right" until this "First Thing" comes First.

Rachel's Tears; Mary's Fears

Isaiah 63:7-9 Psalm 148 Hebrews 2:10-18 Matthew 2:13-23

The day after Christmas is a bag of mixed emotions. It is when distant family members will see one another off after a nice visit. The packages and presents will have been opened and put away. Leftovers will be picked over, and there will be "wailing and gnashing of teeth" when we finally realize how much food we really did put away! The high of the season of Advent is sometimes met with a lull so deep and wide that we are often left to wonder if it is all worth the trouble. Next year, we resolve, will be much simpler, a lot less troublesome, maybe a lot less expensive.

Christmas is over, and it's time to get back to the real world. It's time to take down the decorations and repack them carefully enough so maybe they can be used again next year. The house gets put back in order, and very soon it seems over almost as quickly as it had begun. And in this way it may seem strange to suggest a parallel between the Christmas "high" and its corresponding "day-after" low, and the "high" of the birth of Messiah and the "day-after" of Herod's "reality check".

I am almost always caught off guard when confronted with Matthew's record of Herod's slaughter (2:13-23) in the lection reading cycle. Just as we are winding down the celebration of the birth of the Messiah and reminding all who will listen that "God is with us", we are forcefully - and sometimes violently - confronted with the real world and all its ugliness. Our feet are once again firmly planted on the ground, and we are reminded that the world we live in can often be very harsh in spite of the Good News.

Imagine, if you can, that you are among those who had been made aware of Messiah's birth. Surely there was a hope-filled mood among the many who were privy to this knowledge, even if as many as two years had passed, that the Lord God had finally visited His people in the midst of pagan Roman domination and had brought the Good News of salvation. It would have been reminiscent of the Exodus your ancestors had spoken of and had written about. You're sitting around with family and friends trying to take in what has happened, thinking of all the good that may finally come from this remarkable news; maybe even getting a little impatient, yet still hopeful. As these visits and conversations are happening in homes around the region, the children play and nurse as if there is not a care in the world.

Suddenly, and without much warning, the laughter of the children turns to screams of terror soon replaced by "loud lamentation" as the screams subside. What was once an occasion for reflection and hope has now become memorable not because of the Good News - which is quickly forgotten - but because of the horror visited upon you by a stark reminder of a certain reality. That which "might have been" suddenly gives way to the harsh reality of "what really is." Herod is still clearly in charge. Nothing much seems to have changed, certainly not for the better. In fact, for a mother who mourns things could not be worse. And Rachel weeps.

It doesn't seem fair that such an occasion for hope can turn so quickly and so violently, but I wonder if what Christmas means can be fully appreciated without some of the ugliness of the world we live in. Such evil is actually useful in helping us to gain a broader context in which to embrace the greater good, but it is difficult - if impossible - to imagine that the mothers of Bethlehem could have been so easily consoled. Jesus was still just a toddler being protected by His own parents as all the other children were, so this "greater good" is not yet realized by the mothers of Bethlehem. That Time is yet to be; and through Rachel's tears will come Mary's fears.

The question asked by writers, scholars, and theologians - how to reconcile Herod's senseless slaughter with the birth of Christ - is an unfair question even if we would logically reason that while the children were not "saved" then, they would certainly be "saved" later when Jesus would not be spared. It is, I think, a natural human response to try and make sense out of utter nonsense and try to bring order out of chaos. It is especially problematic for Americans because we cannot conceive of a government power so absolute as to allow such a thing to happen even as we read about such things happening at the hands of governments in other parts of the world.

We do know, however, that evil cares little about "greater" things even as "greater" things are ultimately exposed, ironically, in evil. We also know, even if we try to pretend otherwise, that we are surrounded by evil - and by good. We are often confronted with evil while it seems we have to search out the good. We read of evil in the papers and hear of it on TV. I noticed during Advent there seemed to have been an unusually high number of children who had gone missing and later turned up dead. How do we reconcile the evil of this reality with the good that is Christmas? How is Herod's heinous act associated with the Christmas Story at all?

Maybe in this way: the real - and whole - Christmas story must take everything into account, especially the current reality. We cannot escape or deny the bad just because we want only the good, and we cannot improve the Good that has already come to us though we do try! We cannot deny that the Good had to come in order to confront the bad. One cannot exist without the other, but it is a hard sell to a culture that has been oriented toward personal happiness and self-fulfillment. "The Cross is a very hard sell to the many who prefer the Crown" (Rev. Bud Reeves, "Marketing the Gospel", 27 Jan 08). Yet the manger story makes no sense and has no rightful place or appropriate context outside the certain reality of Herod's massacre.

We don't live in a perfect world; and because of human instincts and inclinations, we are incapable of creating - or at least are unwilling to create - let alone maintain, a "perfect world" because our notions of perfection have more to do with how personally pleasing things are to us as individuals; we will worry about "strangers" or "neighbors" or even the Church once our own business is settled. The merit and the True Spirit of Christmas are long forgotten - if they ever existed at all - because the order we seek to restore or maintain and protect - much like Herod - has more to do with our own comfort and the sense of well-being we desire, perhaps even at the expense of others. Our own "kingdom" that is, which can often be at odds with the Kingdom that is to come.

Still, it seems quite a stretch, and unfair, to compare our own self-interests to the same manner of "evil" that was ordered by Herod. After all, we will not order or even allow the slaughter of innocent children to a political end or for our personal comfort ... will we? Or can it be true, as some theologians have suggested, that there can be no reasonable distinction between what we might consider to be "profound" evil - such as Herod's slaughter or Hitler's Holocaust - and the simple pursuit of personal happiness and self-fulfillment? That which denies St. Augustine's concept of the proper "created order" that always seeks the higher level when we deny self-indulgence for the sake of others who have need? This seems to be consistent with the biblical teaching of breaking the law in which one violation renders us guilty of the whole law - whether it is an intentional act of cruelty or the neglect of complacency.

Notice, however, that even in the midst of the evil perpetrated by Herod, the Lord is still moving in a world that clearly hates Him. It is the same world that does not even know Him but nevertheless displays its hatred of Him and His ideals by the relentless pursuit of its own ideals defined by a self-actualizing culture of individualism. It is a world that reacts violently, personified by Herod, to any perceived threat to what most consider to be a more "natural order", the fulfillment and care of self to the exclusion of - and sometimes direct harm to - others.

In the face of such harsh reality, however, we must always be mindful of the Divine Reality which is to come. It is a reality for which we are prepared daily as we navigate the cumbersome world around us, the world that challenges us to pursue our own, to "look out for #1", a culture that seeks to convince us that we are indeed "masters of our own universe". It is a world which teaches us to destroy anything that gets in the way of our personal happiness and sense of security. Herod's slaughter of the children in the midst of Rachel's tears reminds us that until the final trumpet sounds, Mary's fears may be realized: that her own beloved Son was brutally tortured and murdered ... and no one cared.

Pat-down Smack-down

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."- Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- 4th Amendment to the US Constitution


Unreasonable search and seizure: "search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a crime is present. Such a search and/or seizure is unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (applied to the states by the 14th Amendment), and evidence obtained thereby may not be introduced in court."
- http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unreasonable+search+and+seizure


"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin



To fly, or not to fly. This is the question most on the minds of those who either have frequent-flyer miles or wish to. The government has decreed that all who wish to board an airplane are suspect and therefore guilty until such time as extreme measures of search of one's person can prove that person's innocence.

Ok, maybe that's a little over the top. I've not flown in a very long time (and I don't really miss it) but "back in the day", a search became necessary at the airport only if one could not pass through a metal detector without setting it off. Now, as the news reports indicate, everyone will either be put through a full-body scan OR a rather intrusive manual search of one's body that stops just shy of cavity breach.

These searches are being conducted by folks who are just carrying out the duties they've been instructed to perform, but there are some glaring problems. First, it could be reasoned that they have been trained to check for weapons, of course, as well as for items that cannot be picked up by a metal detector. Remember our good friend who ended up smoking his own "crack" on Christmas in Michigan? That powder would not be found by any means other than those currently employed. Having said this, however, these TSA folks - while searching for weapons and explosive devices - have apparently not been trained to respect the person whom they are subjecting to what many describe as "humiliating". "Groped" has been mentioned in more than one news story.

One cannot fault the TSA for what it believes to be doing for the greater good. One individual may not be afraid to die and insists upon his constitutional right not to be subject to an unreasonable search, especially without probable cause. The other folks flying on the same plane, perhaps with their children, feel a lot better, however, in knowing that the TSA is doing all it can reasonably or not so reasonably to keep as many safe as possible.

Can it really be as simple, as some have suggested, that one who would object to such searches simply drive or take a train or a bus? Do we have a "right" to fly without being "groped" or otherwise "humiliated"? Or is the smack-down more basic than this? We get it that it was Arab Muslims (or was it Muslim Arabs?) who committed the dastardly deeds on that fateful day in 2001. Subsequently it was the color of one's skin or the sound of one's name that made one suspicious and susceptible to a more concentrated search, but we cannot forget American Muslim (or is it Muslim American?) Richard Reid who tried to blow up a plane with his shoe. So can it be only Muslims who are suspect? Where would TSA draw the line without "profiling", which has become a dirty word? Who would be subject to the kind of search that might have revealed the shoes or the powder in the underwear?

Who is the real enemy here? As it stands, apparently anyone with a plane ticket is a potential mass murderer, and the TSA has been charged with protecting the well-being of your dear old, wheel-chair-bound granny. Now if, heaven forbid, dear old granny dies in an explosion because a bomb somehow got past otherwise lax security measures, granny's family will have their day in court and will be seeking damages from here to kingdom come due to the government's, or the airline's, failure to keep granny reasonably safe. They failed to find "junk" in someone's "junk", and granny's life was cut short due to someone else's neglect. "Someone" should have "done something", the grieving family would wail at any reporter who would give them a microphone and a moment in the spotlight. Meantime, the TSA administrator would be standing tall before the Congress, being called every demonic name in the book, and his resignation would be virtually demanded.

Granny's fine, however, but she's a little disoriented, dismayed, and offended at having been so aggressively searched and made to feel like a criminal suspect for no reason other than that she wanted to fly out to see the grandkids. Now the TSA administrator is standing tall before the Congress, being called every demonic name in the book, and his resignation is being ... well, if not demanded, at least alluded to. And heaven forbid that one slips through, which is highly possible regardless of the extreme measures we take given the extreme nature of the very real enemy we do face. Mr. TSA and Ms. Homeland Security would not need to bother getting out of bed, for their lives or excuses will not be worth the skin they're wrapped in.

When we find ourselves held hostage by fear, real or imagined, we find little more than confusion and uncertainty. Life becomes no more than a series of doubts, and we will find no solace but plenty of demons. Living in fear is the worst kind of tyranny for which there are no measures of security, reasonable or otherwise. If one is ok with the measures the TSA has deemed necessary, one is ok with measured standards of liberty up for grabs only by those whose lives are controlled by fear. And as syndicated columnist Ann Coulter recently opined, what measures will be next if by chance an explosive device is actually found in an anal cavity? Or the other, more feminine, cavity?

Where would YOU draw the line?

The Paradox of Faith

Genesis 22:1-19
John 15:18-19


Faith is absurd. Faith makes no sense, cannot be explained, and thus cannot be appreciated, let alone embraced by a world that functions according to its own senses and perceptions and within a realm that requires - and then provides - its own explanations. In the world of physical reality, seeing is believing. That which cannot be seen or explained is irrelevant and without foundation because it comes from nothing the world can provide for itself. Faith is a radical departure from the social norms we are more familiar with.

Soren Kierkegaard was a 19th-century philosopher, writer, and Danish Lutheran as was virtually every other citizen of Denmark. He found a total disconnect between genuine Christian faith and whatever it was the Danish state church was putting out. He came to refer to this "empty shell" as 'Christendom', a social philosophy that only pretended to be Christianity by using the same language and making the same claims but without the same expectations and demands. Kierkegaard considered 'Christendom' to be an even greater threat to Christianity than outright paganism because it only pretended to be something it really was not ("Good Ideas", Wilken, 169). It was the "fear and trembling" faith of Abraham by which Kierkegaard judged genuine faith.

Reading more about his views of the apparent conflict which exists between genuine faith and social standards of conduct (ethics) has forced me to confront my own faith especially within Kierkegaard's assessment of what the story of Abraham and Isaac offers to us. Jesus' own words to His disciples in John's Gospel seem to shore up what Kierkegaard considers to be absolute when we struggle with what the world seems to expect from us and what Jesus actually requires of us. Faith calls us far and away from comfort and conformity, and even puts us at odds with those around us.

Consider faith to be the challenge by which we are standing at the edge of a cliff and looking down into a dark abyss. We cannot see the bottom; we can only see to the edge of the darkness, and we have no idea what is beyond that darkness. From within that darkness calls the Voice who says, "Jump. I'll catch you." Faith does not simply ask us to believe the Lord will catch us. Faith requires that we actually jump!

Not literally, of course, but this kind of faith would be what our social standards would consider to be "insane"; there is nothing apparent for the greater good of society that will come as a result of such a leap of faith. Even by the kind of comfortable, rational theology the American Church seems to push, the Lord would not even ask such a radical commitment from us because, the Church reasons, the Lord wants us to be "happy". He would not ask such a thing of us. According to Kierkegaard, however, the social norm actually serves as a temptation that keeps us from pursuing the life of faith on the Lord's own terms. Our more comfortable faith fits neatly into how we have ordered our lives in social conformity.

Kierkegaard justifies exactly this kind of radical action by his understanding of Abraham's challenge when he was called upon by the Lord to offer up Isaac's life. By social standards, any decent person with a conscience would not consider such a thing. In fact, we would reason that anyone who claims to receive such a charge is insane and listening to demons because our God would not ask such a thing of us. Maybe not exactly that, but we fail to remember that Abraham's God asked precisely this thing of him.

Especially today, we have rationalized and watered down Abraham's story by looking backward through New Testament theology and Israel's entry into Canaan where such human sacrifices were the practice of some. When we look backward through the Law's prohibition against such practices, we can clearly see the outcome. Our concept of faith thus becomes predictable according to our own terms, expectations, and demands. Abraham did not have the Law or any kind of religious system. He had ONLY faith, the moment at hand, the beloved son he had longed for, and a God whom he had followed out of his homeland to a destination unknown. For what was being asked of him, he had no way of knowing it was a "test" he was facing because the story had yet to be written.

Even the prophet Muhammad in his day saw a disturbing level of complacency and social conformity within watered-down Christianity and Hellenized Judaism that asked nothing of its practitioners except to "fit in" with the secular culture and brought nothing but misery and social injustice to those who did not "fit in". It was his intent - he believed it to be his calling - to return the "people of the Book" to the radical, absolute, and unquestioning faith that was personified and "perfected" in Abraham's willingness to "jump", to obey without question. It was this faith upon which Jesus was to establish His Church, His blessed Body, against the "gates of Hades" in a world that would seem to prefer those "gates" to the radical obedience that moved Jesus to the Cross - and moved Abraham to do something that even in his time and within his social structure was unthinkable.

Kierkegaard also challenges us to consider a couple of unsettling and personally destabilizing social factors in Abraham's story. First, consider the time. One's identity was substantially wrapped up on one's own country; it was a means of identification. Abraham was being called upon to depart from his identity, his heritage. Secondly, making babies was the measure of one's social worth. To be without a child was to be without honor, without purpose, to be under some curse - according to society's norms. At such an advanced age, Abraham was childless. It was completely reasonable to believe he would die without an heir.

Social standards of the dominant culture were safe, perfectly ethical within the cultural context, predictable, and comfortable. Following the call of the Lord, however, was anything but safe or comfortable; and as we will discover later in Abraham's life, faith and ethical behavior would come to be completely at odds.

We know what ethical behavior is. What we don't know is the root, or the absolute, of ethics. What I might consider to be unethical behavior as a pastor, for instance, would not necessarily be shared universally by all pastors. Any ethical standard is a moving target because while we might agree on certain fundamentals, it is highly unlikely we could narrow down the definition beyond certain cultural standards.

Kierkegaard offered the paradox of Abraham's circumstances and faith through a sense of ethics, or social standards, by which Abraham was willing to "murder" Isaac. By a sense of faith, on the other hand, Abraham was willing to "sacrifice", or give up, what meant the most to him in the entire world for no apparent reason other than that the Lord asked him to. Abraham did not know what would come of it, or why he was being asked to do such an unthinkable thing. He was peering into the darkness from the edge of the cliff, and the Lord was asking him to jump.

It could be argued, as it has, that Abraham already knew the outcome as he expressed to Isaac when he was questioned about the lack of an animal for the sacrifice. If this were true, there could be no faith. It is more reasonable to assume Abraham was trying to assuage Isaac. It is reasonable to believe that if Isaac had been clued into what was about to take place, he would have high-tailed it back to the safety of his mother. Biblically, there is no rationale for believing one thing over another except by hindsight as the words are clearly written. What is not so well known was Abraham's state of mind. One can only image the anguish.

I do think there is one clear thing we can ascertain from the story and Kierkegaard's analysis. Faith makes no sense. It does not compute. It does not fit so neatly into our ordered sense of ethical behavior because our social standards - the means by which we "fit in" with our ordered society - has the potential of actually serving as a barrier between ourselves and the Almighty who may well be calling US into such radical obedience. The Lord may well be looking toward a much greater good by calling us out to the edge and then asking us to "jump", but we will not know this if our minds are toward the social norms and contemporary ethical standards.

The Lord's calling WILL put us at odds with the world around us, including our families, and certainly our friends and acquaintances; Jesus guarantees it. The burden upon us is to choose the standard by which we will ultimately and finally be judged: ethical standards established by the norms of our society - or standards of faith that will take us to the very edge - and beyond.

Why Choose YOUR Church

Deuteronomy 7:7-15 Hebrews 4:1-11 Revelation 2:1-7

The final installment in this series is upon us, and I have to say I'm glad. I'm glad we took this journey together, of course, and I hope it gave us all something to think about and even more to share with others but doing any kind of sermon series can be a little binding. A good series can serve a useful purpose to a particular end, but there must also be a sense of freedom in all we do lest we lose our sense of gratitude, and our efforts become drudgery. We all have restrictions and limitations on some level, of course, but we still like the idea that no one and nothing binds us, that we are free to do because we choose to do - not because we have to.

Which goes to the heart of our third and final question: Why THIS Church? Well, there is obviously no reference to Asbury United Methodist Church of Magnolia to be found anywhere in Scripture, so this question will be a lot harder to answer biblically because the answers are found not in a book but in your own hearts. And you and I must be able to articulate our answers because we are not in competition with anyone nor are we "against" anyone. We are for Christ. If folks want to be Baptist, they should be encouraged to go be Baptists. Or Catholics. Or Lutherans. Or Episcopalians. Or Mormons.

If that is their inclination and they can go with their whole heart toward the Lord, they should go. But they should not go because the preacher is awesome or the choir is great or the potlucks are in abundance or the "entertainment" on any level is top-shelf. It is unfortunate, however, that this is what the Protestant Church in America has been reduced to. With the exception of our Catholic and Orthodox friends whose formal worship liturgy is going to be the same each time, Protestants in general seem to have fallen into a trap in which they lament the many who are searching for the BBD (bigger, better deal) as they continue to try and offer the BBD. It is a never-ending, unsustainable cycle that is entirely dependent on one's knowledge of a community's social structure. It misses the whole point of gathering for worship in the first place. It is also dependent on how much money and energy a congregation has and is willing to expend on such efforts. It is consumerism at its very worst, and it betrays the identity and integrity of the Body of Christ.

We all want our churches to grow, and we want our churches to mean as much to others as it does to us. Church growth is evidence of spiritual fruit being put to good use, folks finding Christ for the first time or renewing their commitment to the Lord. Growth is an indicator that the community of faith is offering something others wants to be a part of. Whether such growth can be sustained over time, however, is a matter of whether or not the WHOLE CHURCH shares in the outreach efforts and common vision or leaves it to a few. It is a question of whether a common vision even exists, how that vision has come to be, and how that vision will come to fruition. It is, as in all things Church, a question of sacrificial love, love that is committed to something greater than self.

The existence and purpose of the Body of Christ within a community must not be reduced to trying to "guilt" people into participation and membership. I realize this is often perceived as coming from the pulpit, but the truth is one can only be made to feel guilty if guilt actually exists, "for godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted ..." (2 Corinthians 7:10). This is to say, the guilt one may feel is guilt that comes from Above, a spiritual stirring in the heart of one who is "incomplete". Further simplified, no preacher can make one feel guilty without one's permission.

Being an active part of the Body of Christ within a particular community of faith does not define the difference between a "good" Christian and a "bad" Christian. Rather, it marks the difference between one who is intentionally and purposefully "going on to perfection" (Hebrews 6:1) and one who is not - and doesn't care. In other words, it is the difference between being "complete" and being "incomplete"; that is, "something lacking". And make no mistake; those outside the Body of Christ are "incomplete" not because they are "bad" but because they have deliberately detached themselves from the "True Vine" as Jesus expresses in John 15; "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in Me".

To answer the question, "Why THIS Church", then, is not a matter of making this particular church "bigger" or "better" but is in how we fulfill our mission as the Body of Christ in helping others toward becoming more "perfect", more "complete". It is in the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ, and it is in the meaningful social issues that speak to people on a very real, very personal level. It is about patient endurance in all things. But before we can answer the question to the community we serve, we must first answer the question for ourselves by answering the "love letter" that comes to us from The Revelation.

I shared in a radio message recently that we demand political reform on virtually all levels, recognizing that before any meaningful reform can take place, the US Congress must first reform itself. Go back to the basics of constitutional government. The Holy Church is no different. Before the Church can hope to transform the society it seeks to serve, she must first be transformed herself. And before the Church can be transformed, you and I must first be transformed. The transformation of the Body of Christ, however, cannot AND MUST NOT be measured according to what we think the world expects or demands of us. Rather, we must be transformed by the "first love" we once knew; that moment of justification when nothing else on earth mattered, when our lives had been touched from above and we were told in no uncertain terms: I love you. And I am willing to forgive you.

What a burden that had been lifted from our very souls! What a joy we once knew that even though the world, our friends, even our own families somehow still try and "keep score" against us, the Lord above is willing to absolve us of all wrong-doing NOT by what we had done - but IN SPITE of what we had done! The Glory of the Lord is shown in a human soul made pure once again, and we fell in love with that moment and with Him. We wanted that moment to last forever, and we lament those days when that moment, that promise, that glimpse into eternity, seems so far away. So far away, and so long ago.

As told to us in The Revelation, however, it is not He who moved; it is not the Lord who blinked. The Lord reveals to the Church - the WHOLE church - that it is "[we who] have left [our] first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen ..." (Rev 2:4-5) And it is important for the Church - the WHOLE church - to note that for all the good and the faithfulness that is in abundance for which the Lord offers His compliments and praise, He still says, "Nevertheless, I have this against you ..."

He does not call us "bad"; He calls us "incomplete". There is a lot of good to celebrate and be thankful for. There is much within the Church AND this church in our little corner of the community for which the Lord is glad. You and I can see it. You and I can appreciate it and even be moved to pat ourselves on the back for our "accomplishments" even as we acknowledge that much more needs to be done. And we can work our fingers to the bone rushing to "do" for the community what WE think the community needs and we can even tell the community by our works that we "love" them. Yet in spite of all this, the Lamb calls upon us to be aware that something is missing. And it is no small thing, dear friends. It's not even the "main" thing or the "big" thing. It is THE THING! Without it, we are "incomplete". Without it, we are "detached" from the Vine.

The Lord knows it, but apparently the Church - the WHOLE church - does not. The Church has busied itself in trying to be all things to all people - and all for good causes - but the Church has broken away from the "True Vine". We have forgotten who we really are, and who we really belong to. We are not here to serve the world; we are here to serve the Lord in the world. And there is a difference.

Why this church? Believe it or not, it was you who reminded me of how much of myself was missing, how incomplete I really was. I suspect you can do the same for so many others not so as to make them feel "bad" about themselves, but to make them feel good about the Lord and what He has done for His beloved Bride, the Church, and what He intends to continue to do WITH and THROUGH His beloved and faithful Bride!

It will be His beloved Bride who will be called forth in the Last Days, just as it is written in Scripture and the Church will be made "complete" by Him alone - IF the Church - the WHOLE Church - will return to that FIRST LOVE by which we were declared "whole" and holy. It is the Church - the WHOLE Church - that will be called forth to "eat from the Tree of Life which is in the midst of the Paradise of God."