Nathanael

It came to mind in Sunday School recently, and I’d been thinking the last couple weeks about the time Jesus called Nathanael.

It's a curious episode. We don't quite know what Jesus is referring to when He tells Nathanael, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." (John 1:48) I can only guess that God somehow supernaturally impressed Nathanael's heart as he sat under the fig tree, preparing him to meet Jesus.

Whatever the case, Jesus' words immediately destroyed Nathanael's initial skepticism. ("Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ?")

But I was impressed at what Jesus saw in Nathanael: “an Israelite in whom there is no guile” (or “deceit,” or “craft” -iness). The One True Judge of human hearts saw in Nathanael an honest man; a man without pretense, mixed motives, or hidden agenda.

I was impressed too that an honest heart immediately “got” Jesus. We often think of Peter's confession (Matthew 16) as the point when the disciples began to perceive Who Jesus IS. But before his first conversation with Jesus ended, Nathanael was already proclaiming, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God ! You are the King of Israel !” (John 1:49)

On his "A Call to the Remnant" blog, beloved brother Frank McEleny gave me the word I was looking for in meditating on Nathanael: authenticity. He perceptively writes of our walk before God,

"... mature saints have one thing in common in my estimation, they are transparent, what you see is what you get. Now this is rarely a way to make friends and influence people but it is the road to authenticity." ("All the world is a stage," http://acalltotheremnant.com/)

I've always been impressed with the prayer a good friend offers in acknowledging his failings: "God, you know my heart." It's authentic prayer: honest about Who God IS, honest about our failings...and that God still knows our deep love toward Him, despite our failings.

Praise Him Who KNOWS our hearts so completely: praise Him Who makes hearts who love Him as authentic as He Himself IS.

Amen !

Comfort

My daughter had been having problems in her pregnancy. Her twins, about whom we literally danced for joy when she told us, were growing unequally. The doctors kept close watch on the situation, and this week decided to do a surgical procedure so each twin would have equal placental nutrition and blood-flow. They told us the procedure was 85% successful.

She had the surgery Wednesday, and they kept her in the hospital to monitor for 24 hours. Everything was O.K., so she was allowed to come home Thursday, and scheduled back at the hospital Friday for continued checking.

She called Friday afternoon, barely able to say, "Elijah didn't make it." When she got home, I just held her and we cried together. I later asked her husband some of the particulars, but didn't talk to her about it. Neither of us could have.

It's been on my mind continually. I have to think of Abraham, able to trust God even with the death of his son because "he considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead..." (Hebrews 11:19). God quickly gave me His grace to say in my own aching and mourning heart, "So too will I trust God."

Today I had my regular time to be in God's Presence. I desperately needed Him today, even more than I usually feel (or at least, admit to) that need. I had determined to worship Him without my emotions intruding: but once in His Presence, I completely fell apart.

He let me. For a long time, He let me blubber and pray, without saying anything. He didn't have to. He was there: He was enough.

Eventually he said, "Those I love live forever."

It was the deep comfort He knew I needed. As deep as His everlasting BEING: I AM comfort.

God, Father, thank you !!

Derek Prince on Pride

As always, Derek Prince' teaching nails it: simple, Biblical, straightforward, logical, Spirit-given.


The essential nature of the sin into which Adam fell...was the same as Satan's own sin. It was the sin of pride, leading to rebellion against God.

In Genesis 3:5 Satan presented his ultimate temptation to Adam and Eve. What was it ? To disobey God and eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden than God had forbidden to them. Satan, in the person of the serpent, said to them:

"For God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

The motivation that prompted Satan's own rebellion in heaven is summed up in the self-exalting statement, "I will make myself like the Most High" (Isaiah 14:14). Subsequently, Satan's ultimate temptation to Adam and Eve was, "If you eat of this tree of knowledge of good and evil, you will be like God--equal to God." It is the same motivation, producing the same disastrous consequences--pride that led to a fall.

What is, therefore, the intrinsic nature of pride ? It is most important that we see this. I can sum it up in one simple sentence: Pride of this kind is seeking to be independent of God. It was not a denial of God's sovereignty in the universe. It was simply a personal decision by Adam and Eve that they could do without God. They didn't need God. If they could acquire the knowledge of good and evil, they would no longer need to depend upon God...

"The people are the rightful masters of Congress and the Courts"

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts,not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

The tea party controversialists are currently sending around the above quote by Lincoln. I've seen it recently posted twice by facebook "friends."

Any quote "conservatives" send around, I try to verify. The Library of Congress' transcript of Lincoln's words, from notes he made in 1859 for speeches in Kansas and Ohio, is slightly different:

"the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it."

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/connections/abraham-lincoln-papers/history3.html

But the slight difference of wording isn't the point here. This isn't the kind of fabricated or deceptively edited quote we usually get from "conservatives" in support of their agenda. This quotation attempts to reverse American history, and its current application.

Lincoln's "men who pervert" the Constitution were southern conservatives promoting the institution of slavery. That rhetorically-violent minority had imposed their evil agenda on the country for decades, in Congress' legislation (The Fugitive Slave Act, for example) and in Supreme Court decisions (the Dred Scott case).

Lincoln's beef with "the men who pervert the Constitution" was that they usurped America's constitutional government to thwart the will of the nation's majority. They effectively blocked the operation of constitutional government in its attempts to rein in their power. And at the time Lincoln spoke, they were threatening to destroy the nation, unless they got their way.

Lincoln conceded that slavery, which southern politicians made the cornerstone of their "states rights" argument, had constitutional standing. But he refused to concede any minority's constitutional right to tyrannize the nation, or threaten to destroy it.

Lincoln's words indeed have current application. Tea partiers would like that to portray themselves as the "rightful masters" of constitutional government, against those who (in their eyes) pervert it...i.e., our constitutional government. It says a great deal about their ignorance of American history, and their lack of self-awareness, that they apply Lincoln's words in self-congratulation.

Any rational view of American history, past and current, would acknowledge that "the men who pervert the Constitution" are still with us: and still attempting to impose the evil agenda of their violent. destructive minority on the nation. That tea partiers fail to recognize themselves in that description is an act of willful self-delusion, stunning even by "conservative" standards: and hubris supreme.

Patriotic Thoughts

Nobody...with the exception of God Himself... could possibly be more contemptuous than I am of "patriotism." The "patriotism" so-called: we all know it when we see it, and we see it most of all on the 4th of July. That my country does no wrong: and if it does, I vehemently SUPPORT its wrong-doing. That each and every one of my country's military people are "heroes." That mine is the greatest nation on earth: indeed, the earth's greatest nation EVER.

It's all a "higher" form of self-righteousness, self-justification, self-congratulation: egoism enlarged to encompass MY nation, MY people, MY culture. So-called "patriotism" lets me follow on MY own way, disguised (and proud) in the selflessness of devotion to a "greater good."

There's no better example than the Omaha pro-war rally N.P.R. covered in 2003, when invading Iraq was in the offing. The fans had gathered in a large outdoor sports-stadium to hear "patriotic" speakers urge war on Iraq...where the President and his Secretary of State told us Saddam Hussein was building "weapons of mass destruction" to unleash on good people (that is, ourselves)...just as he had the 9/11 hijackers. (And lest we forget, both those justifications for going to war proved to be lies.)

As the reporter described the rally with its thousands of waving flags, and spoke with participants, the crowd could be heard continually in the background roaring its "patriotic" sports-cheer: "WE'RE NUMBER ONE !!", "WE'RE NUMBER ONE !!", "WE'RE NUMBER ONE !!", "WE'RE NUMBER ONE !!".

"Patriotism," so-called. We all know it when we see it...and most times, we join in. We join in more vehemently if we harbor any suspicion it's all hollowness and deceit: such thoughts are not "patriotic." Our mouths are quite practiced at shouting down the unacceptable thoughts of our heart.

My problem with joining in is knowing what patriotism means. That's no real glory to me: just what happens with the reflective tendency God has given me to search out and ponder definitions, before pontificating (like this) about a subject. LOL.

"Patriotism" is not a hard definition: it is "love of country" (or more properly, love of one's "father-land".) Nobody can have any problem with that meaning, or fail to understand it. Our problem comes in what we (or more often, professional manipulators) make "love of country" in practice.

Rallying for war, in which the wealth and lives of one's country's people are destroyed, isn't what I call "love." Real people should at least have the wisdom of the fictional Vulcans, and wish that our friends "live long and prosper." Indeed, the nationalistic pride that masquerades as "patriotism" is usually a curse on a nation, destroying rather than blessing. Everyone's seen the pictures of Berlin in April 1945.

Jeanette Rankin had unique standing to speak to the question. Her wisdom was that "You don't win a war any more than you win an earthquake." What kind of unnatural malefactor, then, wishes an earthquake kill his neighbors and friends, and destroy their property ? Who but a psycho murders his own family and sets fire to destroy his home...and says he acted from "love" !?! But the "patriotism" of nationalistic pride asks us to accept that reasoning for war: and we do.

If those outward consequences of such "patriotism" aren't convincing enough, there are spiritual ones. We serve a God who hates pride above all else. He hates its self-congratulation and its self-worship, He hates its disdain of Himself, He hates its rebelliousness, He hates its lies, its hypocrisy, its deceit. God hates pride for opposing and denying all that He IS...and for arrogating His righteous sovereignty to itself.

Pride is the quintessential character of satan: the quintessential "enemy," in Jesus' characterization. How much more hateful to God that Man...His creature, most beloved by Him, and most dependent on Him...vaunts his feeble, dependent self in pride against the King of Glory !!

God hates man's pride with consuming hatred. We know "God opposes the proud" (James 4:6): but "oppose" doesn't begin to convey the force of the Greek antitassetai. "God sets Himself in battle array to besiege to destruction the proud" might come closer. He hates it even more (if that is possible) for vaunting itself on a superiority (personal, racial, familial, national, doesn't matter) that is arrogant vain emptiness. Walking in pride...in opposition to His great command in Micah 6:8...pits us against The One Who governs all: and ensures His implacable judgement against us. What Nazi Germany suffered at the hands of human enemies was child's-play by comparison.

I feel the "thrill of pride" everyone references when they hear the national anthem, the same as anyone else. That's O.K.: it's a natural reaction of my natural man. But it will NOT (by God's mercy) enter into my spirit and heart to poison God's life in me.

The real "love of country" is (in another well-known definition) "wishing and doing the best for" one's country. And the best for my country, or anyone else's country, is easily discerned: God's blessing...which is to say, His Presence. But He will NOT dwell with those proud in their own strength and own way. He will not bless liars, men of violence, deceivers, the unrighteous and unholy. Such are "patriots," so-called.

If we truly mean anything when we mouth the slogan "God Bless America," we must mean God humble America: God make America honest to Him: God teach America to hear Him, and (most of all) obey Him. Since none of those are encompassed in our glib "patriotism"...the greatest patriotism is to entreat God that He give America a heart of deep repentance.

Amen !

Now and Always

I want to tell a shameful story, about my daughter's life.

Sarah got married yesterday, and baptized. Both made us so full of JOY at God's working that we couldn't hardly contain it !!

Sarah is a rebel. She's my examplar of rebellion. When she was 3, she brought home her pre-school report-card, and we read it eagerly. One of the items the toddlers were "graded on" was "Follows Directions." Sarah's very perceptive teacher had checked the "Yes" box next to it...and written out to the side, "IF she agrees with them."

Rebellion.

She lived a rebel from the time she was 13 or 14: every bad choice, she chose. We feared for her safety, her sanity, her life, her happiness, her body, soul and spirit: especially since we knew it was ALL available to her in Jesus Christ, any time she WOULD.

It didn't seem that time would ever be. She was raised by believers, in church, in Sunday School: but she WOULD not. And any mention of her spiritual choice usually caused her rebellious anger to flare up at us.

One of the most terrifying dreams I ever had was about her. Set on the street where I had lived as a kid, I dreamed that a carfull of people who wanted to kidnap and harm her: sex-slavery, murder, it wasn't clear: were prowling the street. I saw her playing across the street, and tried to cry out a warning to her. She didn't seem to hear me (or wouldn't hear me) as they stopped to talk to her: and she WILLINGLY got into the car with them. I chased the car, but it sped away and I was left knowing there was nothing I could do to find and rescue her.

The dream scared me so deeply I woke up in panic: so deeply that one time when we were talking and she seemed more receptive than usual, I told her what I'd dreamed. It affected her enough that she cried a tear or two at the moment: but I didn't notice any change afterwards.

Many times she would talk more with her mother than with me, and her mother would share that with me when we talked about Sarah's life. Once her mother told me somewhat-comforting news. Sarah had seemed receptive and the conversation wound that way, so my wife urged her to find a "good church" where her spiritual needs would be ministered to. Sarah had said (not flippantly) that she expected she'd "go to church a lot" some day. As vague and superficial a possible intent as it might be, that was one of the few causes we had for hope, for many years.

One time I so despaired, of her and her brother both, that I fiercely prayed God would lead them through whatever hard experiences He knew they needed in order to really "GET it." It may not have been a completely wise prayer: you ordinarily don't want your kids to go through hard experiences. At the time, it seemed the only possible hope for one who went willingly with destroyers.

God is faithful. He answered that prayer (even if unwise), and other prayers, and not my prayers only. He IS as He says...faithful in mercy to a thousand generations of those who love Him. Today...having learned better to love Him...I might be inclined to pray to love Him still more...and less about people (even the most-closely loved people of our human lives) and circumstances.

Here's the shameful part. As wayward as she was at the time, my daughter understood at some level that God had His hand on her for good...at a time I who believe, was despairing. While I was suffering terror that her life was lost, she knew in some sense that she would "go to church a lot some day."

Today JOY overflows that God has been faithful to make that day today. Our continuing joy is that His faithfulness never ends: that day is ALWAYS.

Today is encompassed in His "always"...as is every yesterday. I'm chagrined I believed so little in His faithfulness even as I prayed: and "GOT" His everlasting mercy so little, even as I prayed it for Sarah and her brother.

Live and learn: and "...to live is Christ..."

Amen !!

Following Tradition II

It seemed necessary to begin with some definition and foundation on "tradition." But as long as that blog became, it really said nothing except what believing Christians have always universally affirmed, what C. S. Lewis called "mere Christianity:" that God has given us His full counsel in scripture, and we should obey Him. That is very much what I understand as "the tradition" Jesus taught: to put it in His chosen terms, the Kingdom of God.

If we recognize scripture as God's word, that's good: and not enough. The operative question for hearers of His word, even (especially) believing hearers, is what we DO to obey it.

The answer seems to be "not much."

One small "tradition" comes to mind, because we were formerly members of a congregation which practiced it. The "holy kiss" (or "kiss of peace") is repeatedly taught in the New Testament: in Romans 16, I Corinthians 16, II Corinthians 13, I Thessalonians 5, I Peter 5. I'd frankly never heard of it: those scriptures were hurried-over, if read at all, in the mid-American evangelical Bible-believing "Christian" tradition I grew up in. It was a revelation to be among believers who did attentively read those scriptures: and simply did what scripture said.

It's a very small thing, of course: and we tend to consider small things unimportant. But wisdom is that small things are often the most important.

Jesus' teachings, even to the very words He used, embodies that wisdom. Derek Prince pointed out, for one example, that Jesus rarely used multi-syllabic words. Especially in His parables, He almost always spoke about ordinary one-syllable things like salt, seeds, coins, fish. We like to think that deep understanding only comes by mastering complexities: but I doubt greater spiritual wisdom and edification is found in the 12 volumes of The Fundamentals' theologizing (for example), than in Jesus' few sentences about a lost sheep.

The holy kiss is not even on most Christians' radar. That's largely because it's a scriptural tradition that hasn't been taught to believers. (And if my experience is any indicator, even where taught, only a few do it. In that regard, the kiss of peace is very much like prayer. Both are traditions uncomfortably intimate for us.)

The "kiss of peace" is a very small thing. Our shame is that we don't do even this small thing God commands. In Jesus' terms, we want to say we follow Him without even being "faithful in a very little thing" (Luke 16).

We'd much prefer He be pleased with our smug cleverness in working out the "right" position on "immanent sanctification" (or some other arcane theological construct no one can possibly know with absolute certainty)...and defending it violently against every Christian who thinks otherwise. But Jesus instead simply commands that we "greet each other with a holy kiss." He reserves His highest praise: "Well done, good slave:" for the one who obeys Him, "because you have been faithful in a very little thing..." (Luke 19).

Worship, however, is not a small thing. It's the outpouring of the love-for-God that Jesus said is the first and greatest commandment. Jesus says the Father seeks those who will worship Him "...in spirit and in truth..." Jesus says His Own appearing signals that time "now is" that we worship the Father as pleases Him: and those who worship in spirit and in truth He calls "true worshippers." (John 4) That's a very pale and flat recap of all that Jesus says in these few sentences: but we undoubtedly speak truth when we say man's whole purpose is to worship God. It's no small thing.

Surprisingly, some (teachers of scripture among them) have told me (and I believe, sincerely) that they don't find scripture teaches how we should worship !! I'll testify whole-heartedly that I do. Indeed, I'd find it completely unbelievable that scripture NOT teach us what pleases God in His foremost desire for us !

In most basic terms, I understand that worship "in spirit and truth" is scripture's explicit teaching in I Corinthians 12-14. (And taught in other scriptures as well...for those who can see it. Of course, there are many professed Christians today who take a theological position that refuses to see it.) In most basic terms, the manifestations of God's Spirit given to each believer (charismata) all have their primary use in worshipping Him. I don't think there's any better, clearer, or simpler way to understand what constitutes "worship in spirit and in truth" pleasing to God. Amen !

But whether or not we will make that identification, Spirit-powered worship is clearly what scripture teaches. With reference to the scriptures in the first part of this blog, we can be certain that this is the worship Paul taught orally and by letter in all places. We can be certain that the "pillars" of the Church in Jerusalem unanimously approved this worship as in accord with Jesus' teaching. The worship we read about in I Corinthians 12-14, led and empowered by the Spirit, is manifestly the Church' worship tradition.

Some just don't see it. If they are sincere in saying so, I trust God will open their eyes, in His time, in His love toward them.

Some refuse to see it. But God is immeasurably loving: He may even open the eyes of some deniers. His wisdom and mercy are greater, and His power stronger, than man's nay-saying. Or in His absolute sovereignty, He may let deniers continue to tie themselves in the self-constructed theological knots they love more than Him, to await the time He treads His enemies underfoot.

Whether He wills to glorify Himself by showing mercy, or glorifies Himself by crushing His enemies...God will be glorified in His unsearchable RIGHTEOUSNESS. The only question for us is whether His Glory in our life will show in His mercy towards us, or in His judgement: and that comes down to what attitude we adapt toward Him, our operative theology.

Theologies can be believing or unbelieving: and everyone has a theology. For most of us, it's not an actual academic study: thankfully, since academic theology seems so often to embody disbelief more than belief. But disbelief is also embodied in the theology of "ordinary" Christians.

The best example I know is the comment of one older lady in our Sunday School class, when we were studying I Corinthians 14:26ff: "Well, we don't do that." (I'd hasten to add this was in response to my, I think, rather mild comment that this was one of the places scripture "let us in on" how the early Church worshipped.)

She was absolutely right, of course. That "we don't do" the traditions scripture teaches, is the exact point of unbelief in many "ordinary" Christians' theologies. It may be only my fore-shortened perspective and experience: but that unbelief seems to be the general mid-American white evangelical Bible-believing "Christian" worship-tradition.

If that perception is true to any extent: is there any regard in which we more show ourselves rebels against The King than "turning to our own way" of worship !? If that perception is to any extent true, the Church' deepest need in our time is to hear, really hear, Jesus' first teaching again: "Repent; for the Kingdom...is at hand." (Matthew 4:17)

Our Father still seeks and still delights in any who will worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. Our confession must be that "we don't do that."

God forgive us !!

Following Tradition I

We are studying the book of Jude this week.

Jude says he felt compelled to start his letter by appealing that we "...contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." (Jude 3)

I was reminded of a study I did many years ago, sparked by I Corinthians 11:2: "Now I praise you because you...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

When I first saw that verse in the Spirit...saw past the mid-American evangelical Bible-believing "Christian" reflexes I grew up in...I was dumb-struck that scripture commended "traditions" in any way. What about all those times Jesus condemned tradition: aren't "traditions," as I'd been taught, by definition contrary to the gospel?

And of course, it comes down to discernment: something the mid-American evangelical Bible-believing "Christian" tradition I was raised in (and yes, that's also a "tradition") didn't teach about at all. And there's the problem of doctrine-based or issue-based "Christianity:" we reduce the faith, indeed Christ Himself, to a "FOR" and "AGAINST" check-list...and never need hear the leading of His living Spirit.

Jesus vehemently condemned the "traditions of men." Like every word He taught us, that's the way it is: no need to explain it away, or make it one end of an either/or theology, if we insist, as He did, on the "... of men" qualifier.

But Paul calls Christ's teachings "traditions" too: and uses exactly the same word Jesus used for what He condemned. Check-list Christian, what do you make of that !?!?

Paul commends "traditions" again in II Thessalonians 2, urging us to resist the spiritual deceits of "the man of lawlessness:" "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." We know then that "the traditions" of our faith are embodied in Paul's letters as much as they were in his oral teaching. In II Thessalonians 3 he further urges us to "...keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us." What greater exhortation to walk in "the traditions" can there be, than that not doing so amounts to false Christianity !

In my study years ago, it became clear that tradition is similarly commended to us in virually every New Testament letter: if not by the exact word irself, by formulations like Jude's above: "...the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." Indeed, Strong's finds "transmission" the core concept of the word Jesus and Paul used: teachings (good or ill) passed on.

Some today, as in Paul's time, claim Jesus gave secret oral teachings that are not in scripture. And it's a certainty that not every word He ever spoke is contained in the gospels: John closes his gospel saying that if everything Jesus did (which must include His speaking) were written down, the world could not hold all the books written. (And commonsense is that he same could be said of any person. We know, for example, that not every word and deed of Abraham Lincoln has ever been written in the many hundreds of biographies about him.)

So the writers of the ancient "lost" gospels, and those who extoll them to our attention today (the "Gospel of Thomas" seems a current favorite with academics), urge us that the traditional scriptures of Christianity don't tell us everything..and therefore don't tell us enough. On that basis, some hold that there are Christian "traditions" which have been forgotten, ignored, or even suppressed. (Professor Elaine Pagels, for one, promotes such a view.) As with the first-century Gnostics, the "religious" spirit still likes to flatter us that we possess superior "secret knowledge" of which others are ignorant.

And when the Christian "traditions" of Spirit-illumined scripture are not sufficient for us, unbelief in the guise of "new scholarship" also piques our love of "modernity" and novelty. But it is simply unbelief...the enemy's way with us since Eden ("...hath God said...?"). It's unbelief in Jesus' words to the High Priest at His arrest, that "I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret." (John 18: my emphasis) It's disbelieving Him when He told the disciples that His teachings would be vouchsafed to them not only as "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (John 14)

Those who allude to "secret" traditions not in scripture show their disbelief of Jesus' plain words which are in scripture, disbelief of the Spirit's ability to bring His words to the apostles' remembrance, and disbelief that the Father wills that we have His complete word in Jesus !! God help our profound unbelief !!

Likewise with His word inspired to Paul. We already know that Paul taught "the traditions" orally and in his letters to the churches (II Thessalonians 2). There's no honest reason to believe he taught a "secret tradition" any more than Jesus did. He tells the church at Corinth that he is sending Timothy to them to "...remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church." (I Corinthians 4; my emphasis)

Any honest reading of Paul's letters sees differences in the topics he addresses, and in his approach. He makes no bones about tailoring his teaching to people's spiritual needs "...so that I may by all means save some" (I Corinthians 9:22b). His claim is rather that when he taught the Corinthians to be united in a shared devotion to Christ's teachings (I Corinthians 1 and 3), he did not teach, "...by word of mouth or by letter..." that Galatians or Romans should divide and vaunt themselves on which teacher they followed. He claimed that when he taught it was unacceptable that one in Corinth's fellowship married his father's wife (I Corinthians 5), he did not teach believers in Ephesus it was acceptable. Reading the body of his teaching we have, there's no honest reason to doubt Paul's claim.

Beside the "secret knowledge" theory, many scholars have taken the view that there were two differing strains of early Christianity: the original gospel taught by Jesus, and a "Pauline Christianity." This too bears on the question: lacking a uniform tradition, how can we obey the repeated exhortations to follow "the tradition" ?

And again, it comes down to belief. If we believe Luke's history in Acts 15, the council at Jerusalem accepted that Paul and Barnabas were teaching the same gospel Jesus taught. Peter and James were the primary spokesmen for fully accepting Paul's teaching, and the council wrote that in their decision they were "of one mind." Paul's account in Galatians 2 says he "...submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles...:" and that the council recognized that he had been "...entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised (for He who effectually worked for Peter in his apostleship to the circumcised effectually worked for me also to the Gentiles)..." (my emphasis).

Paul says that "...James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised." The human leaders of the Church found no disparity between the gospel they had personally heard from Jesus' lips, and that which Paul taught. I tend to accept their judgement over that of modern historians and theologians: both as the testimony of contemporary eye-witnesses, and (especially) as the perception of those the Spirit signally qualified to discern.

Paul and Luke agree that the Jerusalem leaders' were fully convinced the Spirit at work in Paul's ministry was the same Spirit working in Peter's. If they were right, it was the fulfillment of God's words to Ananias in Acts 9 that Paul (not even yet baptized at the time, and known to the Church only as its persecutor) would be "...a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel." God too is witness that "Paul's" gospel was His word to us, the same as it was Jesus'.

Unless we believe that scripture has no historical (much less spiritual) validity, it's impossible to speak of a tradition of "Pauline Christianity" different than Christ's teachings. On scriptural grounds, I don't buy it. And the belief that God sent His gospel only to watch powerlessly as Paul wrested it in a direction He didn't intend or approve, completely mistakes our God, the King !

The gospel is a unitary "tradition." God's repeated exhortations in scripture that we follow "the tradition" all refer to The Way He has given us and taught us: and Jesus has said HE is "The Way."

It's that simple for the believer: God has given us His Way...and commands that we walk in it.

Praise Him !! Amen !

I, Rebel

Praying for forgiveness last night, after giving in to a temptation without even a token fight.

The Spirit asked, "How is it you know God's way, and don't do it ?"

I recognize that formulation as quintessential rebellion. I recognize that formulation as too, too often my own innermost heart.

These years of spending deliberate time in God's Presence have been spiritually exalting. Doing so in obedience to Him, I can easily let it exalt my sense of my own obedience.

The Spirit challenged that: gently, but directly.

In His presence, I've learned to hate rebellion as He does, and recognize it as the sin-of-sin. Learned in His Presence too (or rather, re-learned in power) that obedience is His perfect way, and the only way a man ever perfectly pleases Him.

But all that learning is what a friend called "head-polish," mere cognitive assent, unless we walk in it. How is it we know God's way, and don't do it ?

I, rebel.

God, forgive me !!

"In God We Trust" and "under God"

One of the perennial lies that goes around in "Christian" e-mails, and appears on "Christian" blogs, is that THEY (the federal government, the American Atheists association, liberals, President Obama, the A.C.L.U., etc.) are trying to rob America of its "Christian nation" standing, by doing away with our national motto, "In God We Trust." In 2010, this took the form of a letter from the Congressional Prayer Caucus correcting President Obama when he referred to "E Pluribus Unum" as America's national motto. It's worth sifting through this controversy to find out what truth it contains.

I've independently researched the "national motto" question over several years. Snopes.com's research on the 2010 incident summarizes the facts well:

"In 1782, the U.S. Continental Congress proposed the use of the Latin phrase E pluribus unum (commonly translated as "out of many, one" or "one from many") on the Great Seal of the United States as a reference to the original thirteen American colonies' having joined together as a single united entity. The phrase is still a component of the Seal of the United States and has appeared on U.S. coinage since 1795.

"However, although E pluribus unum was long considered the de facto national motto of the United States, it was never officially established as such by legislation. The only legislatively established national motto the United States has ever had is "In God We Trust," a phrase which first appeared on U.S. coinage in 1864 (and is now a part of all U.S. currency and coinage) and which was adopted as the official U.S. national motto through a law passed by Congress in 1956." (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/mottoletter.asp#hRDuUHaYoRJFjkJj.99)

Those are the simple facts. But the controversy is (of course) political: and that always involves shaping facts to a partisan purpose. The Congressmen's 2010 letter is an example. Suffice it to say that the "Congressional Prayer Caucus" is an almost-exclusively Republican "conservative" outfit. Some might consider this proof that Republican "conservatives" are the only Christians in Congress. I find rather that the "Prayer Caucus" mostly functions to manipulate "Christian issues" to "conservative" purposes.

The signators of the 2010 letter (one of whom I know personally, having been part of the same congregation in the 1980s) had the obvious purpose of dinging President Obama...dinging him especially as "anti-Christian" for failing to cite "In God We Trust" as the national motto. Interestingly, Snopes' research mentions that other presidents: including the "conservative" demi-god, Ronald Reagan: have referred publicly to "E Pluribus Unum" as our "national motto."

But in point of one fact, "conservatives" are correct: "In God We Trust" is America's official "national motto," so designated by Congress in 1956.

"In God We Trust" has a long association with American government. It's first appearance was in the fourth stanza of "The Star Spangled Banner" in 1814: "And this be our motto, in God is our trust." The phrase was first added to American coins during the Civil War when a Pennsylvania minister wrote Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon Chase, that in that crisis our coinage should acknowledge God. The minister suggested the mottoes "PERPETUAL UNION" and "GOD, LIBERTY, LAW." At Chase' order, the Director of the Mint proposed "OUR COUNTRY, OUR GOD" or "GOD, OUR TRUST." Chase re-worked the latter to "IN GOD WE TRUST," which first appeared on the two-cent coin of 1864. (http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx) In all these permutations, the motto was a not-so-subtle claim that God favored the Union side in the war.

The motto did not appear continuously on all coins and bills until 1938, by act of Congress. In 1956 it became our official national motto. The first of several constitutional challenges to the motto, all unsuccessful, was Aronow v. United States in 1970. In that case a federal Court of Appeals held that "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise." In 2004, the Supreme Court decision in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow cited the Aronow ruling in finding the pledge of allegiance' phrase "under God" and other such governmental and patriotic references to God are not unconstitutional, "... hav[ing] lost through rote repetition any significant religious content...", and are only expressions of "...ceremonial deism."

More salient to these phrases' use as "Christian" shibboleths was the public protest after "In God We Trust" was omitted from the $10 and $20 gold coins of 1907. President Theodore Roosevelt publicly opposed restoring the motto to coins, writing that "To put such a motto on coins or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege.” (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9406E2D8103EE033A25757C1A9679D946697D6CF). In 1908 Congress nonetheless legislated that the motto should thereafter appear on all gold and silver coins: in 1938, that it should appear on all U.S. coins and bills. And in 1956, that "In God We Trust" was the official national motto of the United States.

Just two years earlier, Congress had added the words "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. I'm old enough that my life spans the before and after of that official piety. The summer of 1953 was my first year in Vacation Bible School at Kensington Avenue Baptist Church in Kansas City, where my folks were members. My mother saved my certificate of attendance that year. The certificate (printed by the official Southern Baptist publishing house) was imprinted with the pledges to the Bible, to the Christian flag, and "to the United States Flag." The latter (see the image below) lacks the words "under God"...which only became part of the pledge of allegiance the next year.

Granted I'm a bit on the old side now: I can't help viewing any event that took place during my lifetime as "recent." By that criteria, America's official "godliness" is neither actually "Christian" (according to a "conservative" Supreme Court's decision), nor long-established: yet those are the operative assumptions on which "conservatives" vaunt themselves as defenders of "America's Godly Heritage" (as the false "historian" David Barton formulates the "Christian conservative" Big Lie).

God has certainly blessed America with some men after His Own Heart in our national history: even a few in our political history. We have had times when the Spirit fired the people of our nation to levels of fervent worship much greater than today; and times of disbelief much greater than today's. But always God has kept for Himself a remnant for His Own possession, as He promises. He does so even now among us, and does always, in all nations where His Name is worshipped. And He upholds His Own always, by His sovereign mercy over all who love Him ! Praise HIM !!

But those spiritual realities have no real bearing on America's official national "godliness." That shibboleth has always been what it is now, a creature of political pretense, in the spirit of proud hypocrisy.

Wikipedia notes, for example, that "The 1956 [national motto] law was one of several legislative actions Congress took to differentiate the United States from atheistic Communism." As in the Civil War's coinage, we still want to believe, and assert, that God is on our side. (Lincoln aptly skewered that prideful attitude, when he told a delegation of clergymen that he thought it more important to be sure we were on God's side.)

The 1954 legislation adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance was another such case. The author of the legislation, Michigan Congressman Louis C. Rabaut, argued for its passage in Congress, that "... the unbridgeable gap between America and Communist Russia is a belief in Almighty God. From the root of atheism stems the evil weed of communism and its branches of materialism and political dictatorship." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_C._Rabaut)

Interestingly, Rabaut was a Catholic, and a Democrat. On either count, today's "Christian conservatives" would doubtless find him persona non grata.

Even more interesting, the original pledge of allegiance, containing no reference to God, was written by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, in 1892. The absence of God in his formulation may seem surprising, but Bellamy's account of the pledge's origin (entered in The Congressional Record in 1945) emphasizes that its purpose was entirely patriotic:

"At the beginning of the nineties patriotism and national feeling was at a low ebb. The patriotic ardor of the Civil War was an old story ... The time was ripe for a reawakening of simple Americanism and the leaders in the new movement rightly felt that patriotic education should begin in the public schools."
(A Brief Synopsis of the Story of the Origin of the Pledge taken from the Detailed Narrative by Francis Bellamy, Author of the Pledge. Congressional Record 91 Cong. Rec. (1945) House. pp. 5510–5511.)

The "new movement" of which Bellamy was a leader was "Christian socialism." Given those origins, I'm surprised our current "conservatives" so vehemently embrace the pledge (George Bush Sr. campaigned for president on little else than being "for" the pledge of allegiance !). But ignorance of facts is a great shield against reality. Even were they aware of those facts, I'm sure "conservatives" would be able to deny it was true. Like all factionalists, they love truth only so far as it corresponds to their own worldview: in which "socialists" are America's greatest enemy, not "patriots."

But the only question that matters a whit in it all: what says God, Whom "conservatives" make the adjunct of their political posturing ?

God hates hypocrites. He hates most fiercely those who practice hypocrisy in HIS Name.

May God uphold His Name in power ! May He glorify Himself in the righteous judgement Jesus pronounced repeatedly, "Woe to you,...hypocrites !" (Matthew 23)

All praise to You, our King, for YOUR righteous rule and YOUR righteous judgement on evil-doers !!

Amen !!