Cursing your ruler

"You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people." (Exodus 22:28)

Just another of the miscellaneous laws Moses laid out for the Israelites in the wilderness. How seriously are we supposed to take that ? Isn't cursing our rulers just par for the human course ?

But God obviously considers cursing a ruler a very great sin: He links it with cursing Himself. He doesn't specify the punishment: but we know He ordered a half-Egyptian Israelite stoned to death for cursing His Name. (Leviticus 24:10-16) Job's wife also understood death to be God's judgement for cursing Him, advising her husband to "Curse God and die." (Job 2:9)

Paul obviously took the law against cursing a ruler seriously. When he was brought before the Jews' ruling council in Jerusalem, Ananias, the High Priest, ordered someone to punch Paul in the mouth. Paul "reviled" his persecutor as a "whitewashed wall," until he was told Ananias was "God's High Priest." He backed down immediately, pleading ignorance of Ananias' office, "...for it is written, 'You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.' " (Acts 23:5)

We know at least part of how Paul understood God's command to not curse (or, per Acts, "revile," or "speak evil of") a ruler. Romans 13 makes clear the Church' understanding that Christians should "be subject to" human rulers (even, in the book of Romans' time, the legendarily evil ruler Nero), because they rule by God's sovereign choice, and in His authority. And those who "resist authority" (no doubt including cursing the ruler) opposes God's law, and will suffer the consequences.

Whether or not Paul wrote the book of Romans, he was a Christian, and a leader of the Church: it's inconceivable that he would have rejected that teaching. Indeed, his actions before the Jerusalem council show him practicing that teaching. Upon learning that Ananias...who had personally played a key role in condemning Jesus to death...was "God's High Priest," Paul immediately, publicly, repented of his "reviling" words against him.

God puts His command to "...not...curse a ruler of your people" on some kind of equality with not cursing Himself. The writer of Romans gives us further insight into why God views that as sin. The Church taught that this was God's commandment, and that Christians should obey it even when the ruler de jour was Nero. Paul acted in obedience to that commandment.

And what do you say about the ruler of your people, American Christian ? That America's President in any regard tries to obey God's mandate that human rulers be "a minister of God to you for good" ? Or does mention of the name "Obama" raise in your spirit a stream of the vilest hatred and slander ?

Do the words that flow from Christians' mouths, e-mails, facebook posts, and blogs show what spirit is in them ?

If so, may America's Church learn what God means when He commands "You shall not...curse a ruler of your people;" and deeply repent.

A Praise

Very creation sings His Presence: His ravishing beauty, His power.

Does anything He's graced, not ?

He Fathers Life; and all life lives giving and receiving, expends as He IS, Love, in Love.

Man, His creation, beautified in Him, lives graced by Love for Love.

He IS, in all, His Presence His Love, His Praise, Life.

All, sing love praise live HIM.

Amen, Amen.

The Problem With Democracy

During World War I, the U.S. Secretary of War decided that prostitution was a danger to the health and moral fiber of soldiers and sailors. Red-light districts near military bases were ordered shut down. Martin Behrman, political boss and mayor of New Orleans, reluctantly complied by shutting down the city's legendary Storyville district: famously remarking, "You can make prostitution illegal in New Orleans, but you can't make it unpopular."

The problem with democracy is a moral problem: sin is popular. Government of, by, and for the people will be as people are: and people are sinners.

Today we're seeing majority popular opinion becoming more accepting of abortion and gay marriage: so we increasingly have laws protecting those evils as "rights." Public opinion is being professionally manipulated to view gun "rights" as sacred: so legislators (politicians who keep their jobs by giving people what they want) rush to make it so in law.

But the deeper problem of democracy is that "people rule" (as "democracy" means) is the exact opposite of the government God desires, intends, warrants, decrees, empowers, pledges, and guarantees among men: His Own Kingdom.

In this choice, this head-to-head confrontation of governments, Jesus cries to followers of democracy the first word He cried to this fallen world, and cries today and always,

REPENT !!

I'm Not Sure

I'm re-reading James 1. Had recommended that as a starting-place for a new believer who's never really read the Bible before, and I wanted to hear it again myself before talking about what he got from it.

One of my favorite verses is in that chapter: "If any man lack wisdom..." I certainly know that's me. But I can still remember when the full import...the operative reality...of that verse hit me 10 or 15 years ago: and I did what James said.

One time when our men's group was studying James, I asked the guys if they'd ever asked God for wisdom. They all said they had, of course. But as we talked about it, it became clear they meant they'd asked God for wisdom in some particular circumstance. It struck me at the time that that was true and good, as far as it went: but that my understanding of the verse was somewhat different.

I put it aside to think about, like other somewhat-differences I note between my own thinking and other believers'.

Maybe I have a handle on it now...maybe not. But I understand James to mean we can ask God for wisdom as a lifestyle (an over-worked word, but the right one here). That's not to say prayer for circumstantial wisdom is at all inapplicable, or any kind of error. It's also not to say that it's either/or: even those who pray for a life of wisdom doubtless have circumstances arise which require particular prayer.

So where does the shade or increment of difference lie ? Prayer for circumstantial wisdom is as obedient to the scripture as prayer for a wise life: and I don't doubt, as fully honored by God. Yet there is something greater in God's pleasure with Solomon's asking for wisdom: and I understand Solomon was asking for wisdom in all that God had given him, more than to act wisely in a particular circumstance (I Chronicles 1:10-12).

I'm not sure: but perhaps God's greater pleasure is in Solomon's trusting Him for more: for all time, rather than one time. That seems to accord with James' words regards wisdom: that God gives generously to any who ask Him without doubting. It makes sense to me that His pleasure, and His generosity, is greater when we trust Him, act-in-belief toward Him, for all things. The latter is how I understand Jesus' Own walk, and His teaching...the Kingdom of God.

Repentance

In the first gospel, it was the first word Jesus spoke as He began His public ministry: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17). It's the very first step by which the unrighteous and unholy (ourselves) must approach Him Who IS Righteousness and Holiness: and a continual requirement of a continuing relationship with Him. But how do we get there ?

Meditating on that question, there seem two requirements. I'm not sure of their order, or ranking: or if they should be ordered or ranked. Indeed, the two work so closely together I'm not sure they're separate things at all, except for convenience in talking about them. In themselves, they seem more like intertwined aspects of one reality.

Honesty with ourself, about our self, seems crucial: how else can we unrighteous and unholy ever perceive, much less admit, that's what we are ? But, apart from Sovereign grace, how can malefactors such as we are even conceive a measure perfect enough to gauge our own depravity ?

Yet we do. C. S. Lewis points out in opening Mere Christianity that we all behave as if we believe there's a universally-recognized moral standard: we appeal to it, as if certain everyone knows the rules, when we are wronged by someone flouting it. And more to the point, we go to elaborate lengths to justify our own shabby behavior in terms of that standard: arguing that we did not really transgress its rules because (insert excuse here).

Unrighteous and unholy as we are, we yet seem to believe there is a "right" and "wrong," which others (at least in their dealings with us) should adhere to. Our choice for honesty comes in how we personally relate to that moral standard we believe incumbent on all...do we believe it incumbent on ourself ? If we except our self from its authority, we lie to ourselves that we acknowledge its absolute force. Honesty with ourselves begins in acknowledging that we are limited beings: and limited first as subject to a standard of righteousness independent of our own desires and purposes.

If we are not thus honest with ourself about our self, how honest can we be with God ? The only possible honesty to God is acknowledging we are NOT God. If we hold ourselves only to a standard whose highest "good" is our self, how truly do we acknowledge One more righteous and holy than ourself: or how honestly desire His forgiveness, if we're satisfied with our own ? The dishonest heart's repentance and forgiveness are hollow; a lie; self-deceiving religious form; hypocrisy. Only fierce honesty can repent as God requires, in spirit and in truth.

Repentance also requires (in the wonderful title of Derek Prince' seminal teaching) agreeing with God. First, that HE IS GOD: that His rule and His law (present in attenuated form in Lewis' "universally-recognized moral code") are infinitely more righteous than our own. In the same honesty, our heart must agree with God's that we have transgressed against His righteousness, rule and law: no excuses. Repentance.

If we agree with God that He IS The King and The Authority, honesty must acknowledge Him as the One against Whom we transgress. If we agree, as He says, that He is the Judge, honesty must recognize His right to condemn and His power to punish. Unless we agree honestly with God that "I AM" is Sovereign- and True-Alone GOD as He says, our repentance is empty: and worse than empty, it is the stench of fleshly self in His nostrils.

With any honest heart which agrees in Him, God is pleased: His pleasure, the highest honor granted by The King. And to any who thus pleases Him, He is pleased to give more of HIMSELF: His mercy-to-forgive, His Fatherly care...even adoption as His sons. To honest hearts, He grants the greatest desire to which man can aspire: God's Own PRESENCE, now and forever.

All praise to HIM Who IS all in all. Amen.

Loving Truth (Even on Facebook)

I have a facebook "friend" ("friended" because she's the wife of a real-life friend) who continually posts all the current political/social lies. Among other things, she posts a lot of tea party stuff (including regular posts from the Australian Tea Party....!?!?!?)

As a Christian, I have to see lies as spiritual warfare. Jesus said He IS "the Truth." He called satan "the father of lies." It's as simple as Jesus said: spreading lies is working for the enemy. By definition, a lie contradicts Truth, as when "The serpent said...'You surely will not die !' " (Genesis 3:4). By nature, a lie is a Personal denial of Jesus Christ.

Even the evil secular world recognizes the simple moral judgement that lies are wrong. Even the spiritually-blind can see that following lies produces disastrous results: who can ignore the utter destruction of Germany when it followed Hitler's "Big Lie" ? In terms of the Bible's deeper moral wisdom, lies are spiritual poison to those who ingest them, producing spiritual death. What kind of "friend" feeds their friends poison ?

Believing what Jesus said, it's painful, infuriating in the extreme, to see Christians (CHRISTIANS !!!) spreading lies on facebook, in e-mail, in their blogs. The only good way I've found to respond to Christians (?) who do the enemy's work is to point out their "facts" don't measure up to Truth...as non-judgementally as possible.

"Non-judgementally" because personal culpability is not the ultimate point here. Personal failing we ALL have always with us: and calling each other evil names short-circuits our receptivity to reproof. To get across the spiritual evil of lies, our best hope is that "friends" who spread them are not so personally invested in them that they personally identify with the lie. It's helpful that virtually all e-mail and facebook lies are authored by Anonymous: giving greater possibility that whosoever will can more dispassionately (and honestly) compare someone else's false "facts" with verifiable reality.

It's noteworthy that "honesty," "fact," and "reality" all, in one regard or another, relate to TRUTH. Even more noteworthy that all are expressions of what really exists...of I AM. In the same way that Creation declares God's glory (Psalms 19:1) and His righteousness (Psalms 50:6) such that all men see it (Psalms 97:6), I understand that the Truth through Whom all things came into being (John 1) is indelibly stamped on the human world in full view of All humankind. Most of all do we, who claim to follow that One Who IS "the Truth," have to LOVE Truth in our honesty to facts and reality. Sadly, if our e-mails, facebook posts, and blogs are a reliable indicator, such honest love is severely lacking in the heavily-politicized American Church.

Fortunately, there are a number of good fact-checking sites online whose honest research verify if the latest political-social factoid actually happened, or if some partisan interpretational "spin" is truthful. I reference and forward those pages when I want to non-judgementally confront a "friend" who's spreading lies. The hope is that anyone with a spiritual consciousness of "Truth," any who honestly love Him, will understand, and repent of these lies.

The deeper question is one that's intrigued me for over 40 years: WHY do people believe lies ? I grew up in a neighborhood only a few miles from the world headquarters of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and a number of kids I grew up with were RLDS or Mormon (indeed, our high-school graduation was held in the RLDS temple next to the parking-lot where Mormons claim Jesus will return to earth). My spiritual awareness as a teenager was practically nil, only the rudiments impressed on my unwillingly mind by years of Southern Baptist Sunday School and sermons: but I remember wondering even then how nice folks, intelligent people, could believe the stuff my Mormon friends did ?

The question came into sharper focus in the early '70s. I was mostly apolitical at the time, a former druggie recently begun to walk in Christ: but we were all hyper-aware of the Watergate drama playing out daily. It seemed obvious to me then, as it does even more today, that President Nixon was lying his ass off to save himself. But my parents, longtime Nixon followers, entirely believed his lies that he hadn't done anything wrong, and that everything negative being said about him was the work of political enemies out to get him.

My parents were "good," church-going people, and they weren't stupid. Yet they believed Nixon's lies to the day they died. It put the question prominently before me again: why do good, intelligent people believe manifest lies ?

Even after 40 years, I have difficulty understanding how it can be. It's more clear to me than ever that accepting Truth, or believing a lie, is a moral choice God gives us. More clear too that following Truth (Jesus) is the Way (Jesus) of Life (Jesus) and blessing: and following a lie the sure road to destruction and death. But the best answer I've come up with why people would choose the latter, is that they want to.

My facebook "friend," perhaps in oblique reference to the many times I've challenged her lying posts, recently posted this (itself by an anonymous author):

"Just because I post it, doesn't mean I'm going through it and it doesn't mean that it's directed at anyone. Maybe it's just that I like what I read or what I see and so I share it. I am Human!"

The attempt to disavow responsibility for one's own posts ("Just because I post it...") seems disingenuous on the face of it. But I doubt my "friend" really means it, anyway. Her admission that "...it's just that I like what I read or what I see and so I share it" sounds very much like she recognizes she's responsible for what she posts.

But my focus was on her reason for posting lies: "...I like [them]." That part of her statement seems very honest, and confirmation of my small understanding why people believe lies: it pleases us to do so. In the broad view, the autonomous ("self-law") mind of man in rebellion against God, accepts and acts on no authority higher than its own: we want to do what pleases us.

The problem of being governed by our autonomous mind could not be more stark than it is in regard to Truth: as stark as (and part of) the choice between death and Life (Whom Jesus also said He IS). God gives us a free choice: will we love and follow Truth, and live...or do as we please ? Everything in His governing reality, framed and fashioned by His Word of Truth, follows from that choice.

Woe to American Christianity, whose public testimony (in its facebook posts, e-mails, and blogs) is that it "likes" lies !!

God, Father of mercy, break our evil hearts to REPENT before You !!!

By This We Know the Spirit

What is sometimes called "cessationist" teaching accuses charismatics of indulging in subjectivism: following experiences, rather than scripture. That was John MacArthur's accusation in whatever was the first thing of his I read, over 30 years ago. We've always heard this criticism from anti-charismatics, and we continue to hear it.

And of course it's true of some "charismatics." I've never come across an honest charismatic who didn't recognize that fact. No scripture-based charismatic teacher, friend, writer or blogger I've known in my 40 years as a Christian considered "charismania" anything but a false spirit, satan's imitation of the worship "in Spirit and in truth" which God desires.

But it was obvious, in whatever of his I read, that MacArthur's charge that we follow only our emotions and experiences, was just a way to beat up on charismatics. It was obvious even then that MacArthur's primary purpose was partisan rhetoric: and that he was closed to the possibility that any charismatic could be honest or scripture-based.

Closed as well to discussing what scripture says about charismata, unless discussion started from, and ended in, his own rejection of Spiritual gifts. Closed further to considering what scripture says about the part of emotion and experience in our worship of God. There again, satan is eager to spread his counterfeits: but I doubt even MacArthur believes that human beings should relate to God without emotion, or not experience of His Presence !

That said, I offer my subjective experience of "baptism in the Spirit."

When I was baptized in the Spirit, I knew from the scriptural teaching that preceded the invitation that I wanted to be in the realm of God's rule where His Spirit was manifest among men ! That teaching, in a Derek Prince meeting, was also that "speaking in tongues" was scripturally the initial sign of having received the Spirit. Don't know that I currently consider that an absolute, just on the general thought that the Spirit is sovereign and can do otherwise if He will. But at the time, I went ahead and spoke the unknown words that came into my spirit, in obedience to the teaching that they were from God's Spirit, for me to speak.

I still believe that's true. And I still pray in a tongue any time it arises in my spirit to do so, in obedience to the belief that it's from the Spirit of God, for me to speak. Because the congregation I'm part of wouldn't be able to handle that, I don't do so in public worship. If I were in a congregation that recognized tongues as prayer/worship, I'd be glad to speak out in worship when God prompted me to do so, trusting He'd also give someone His translation. (As is my current understanding of scripture's teaching about using tongues in public worship.) But as yet, I don't feel God's directing me to seek out a "Spirit-filled" congregation where charismata are part of public worship.

But the manifestation of the Spirit I noticed most when I was baptized in the Spirit, and still consider His primary manifestation in my life, was hunger for His word and His Presence, in study, prayer, and fasting. When I first became a Christian, that hunger was intense, and continual. Unfortunately, the vicissitudes of life: college, marriage, parenthood, starting and running a business: occupied more of my life's time as I got older, and I spent correspondingly less time in study and prayer, and fasted much less frequently.

Subjectively, even during those "less Spiritual" periods of my life, I was ALWAYS conscious of the Spirit's Presence; and usually in some kind of internal dialogue with Him. When not in dialogue, it was because of my own failure to engage Him: usually because I knew what He would say, and didn't want to hear Him. But He's been gracious NOT to leave: even though He impressed me, and I had to agree, that those were manifestations of rebellion.

Objectively, even in less Spiritual periods, I seemed to read the Bible, pray, and spend time in meditation much more than most believers I knew. God deals with each of us as He will: so I consider He intends we perceive our spiritual life relative only to Him, not to others. But I understand His intent that we "walk humbly with your God" as applicable to all: and such a walk is manifest in any who choose it. I have to take that inner desire to study scripture, to pray, and to meditate in His Presence are manifestations of that walk: manifestations that can be seen, or seen to be absent, in every life.

I'm glad that in the last few years, God has called me again, and more, to study and meditate on scripture, pray, to seek to be in His Presence, and to listen. That's been a change: the kind of change which, itself, manifests the Spirit's working.

Perhaps MacArthur would consider all that subjectivism unscriptural, or what he calls "charismania." From the inside, I take those experiences rather as God putting in place His tools for a Spirit-filled life. My understanding of scripture is that Spirit-filled life is what God intends all who love Him should desire, and should live.

Our loving Father's effectual will is that "...we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit" (II Corinthians 3:18). I testify from subjective experience that He is able to perform His word !

Praise HIM forever !!

Opinion's Back-bite

I've written several recent posts on opinion. They come from the frustrating (and probably very common) experience of Sunday School classes and "Bible-studies" where getting at the truth in scripture's words is less the point, than people offering their opinions.

After studying what scripture says about "opinion" (http://cross-purposes.blogspot.com/2014/02/my-opinion.html), I'm convinced there's a place, when interpreting what God says, for clearly-demarcated individual opinion (or better, as Paul says, "judgement") that comes from walking closely with Him. A prime manifestation of that walk is deep study of scripture: which ties in with the first rule of heuristics (interpretation), that "scripture interprets scripture." As simple observation, that doesn't seem to be the case of most opinion in Sunday School classes and "Bible-studies" I've been in.

It's taken me a while to get past my frustration with fleshly opinionating. And past that, there's reason to pity the opinionated.

Not pity for what they choose to do: but pity for what they do to themselves in it. The back-bite of treating scriptural interpretation as a matter of one's own fleshly opinion is that it inclines us to view all scriptural interpretation as mere opinion. If we interpret (or rather, manipulate) scripture to confirm our own prejudices, we tend to believe other people do likewise.

In that mind, we become skeptical that any interpretation of scripture can be anything but personal opinion. And ultimately, we can become people who don't believe that scripture embodies objective truth at all.

My late best friend, Mike Baker, had a favorite phrase: that so-and-so "wouldn't know opportunity (or danger, or quality, or whatever) if it bit him on the ass." An unsanctified metaphor, but perhaps appropriate in this context: the back-bite of opinion is that we can get to where we wouldn't know truth if it bit us on the ass.

God Goes to Court

My daughter's drug-case was heard yesterday. Our family went to court to be with her. Gary, one of the lay-ministers from the church she and her boyfriend have been going to, also came. She was one of two people he's been working with, who were in court yesterday.

My daughter's case was the last one to be heard. We sat for hours, listening as prosecutors cited the evidence against each person coming before the judge. I moved to sit by Gary, and told him I'd like to pray with him for people during their hearings. So we did, unobtrusively bowing our heads and praying silently.

After a while, I found my prayers changing: praying less for individuals and their individual circumstances. Praying for God's Presence, glorifying Himself.

Where can repentance, judgement, wisdom, and mercy, be more manifest in a human venue ? None of these exist apart from our God, His Presence. Where He IS, He IS glorious. AMEN !!

Ash Wednesday

Mute

Solemn,

knowing the time,

face like flint

set hard

this hard time.

Jerusalem !

mark this time,

this man

Jesus !

After Him

we mark this time,

face this time

solemnly

O man,

that

thou

art

dust.