KingdomScribes

Easter Heroes -- Bruce, Jackie and Jesus?

2009-04-06T22:24:00.000-07:00

Three "heroes" -- Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and Jesus -- all share in one feature of spiritual Reality: they show us the power of Christ's Victory at the Cross.

Not that Bruce or Jackie ever showed that they knew anything about this, but they represent an almost mythic thread running through western society that shows the Hero as not only victorious, but vulnerable.

Think back to the stories of heroic battles in the movies of not only Bruce, Jackie and John Wayne but all of them from Arthur (King) to Zorro... there is a totally typical pattern of conflict, defeat and victory.

How many stories have you heard or movies have you watched where -- after the entire movie has shown the unstoppable power of some evil character -- the story draws to a close with a climactic battle. Rocky Balboa -- bloody, blinded and beyond human exhaustion -- is battling in the ring against Apollo Creed (whose name sounds like some pagan religious god!) Though everyone watching the story knows that the Hero must win, they watch as it appears he is being beaten down in defeat. But in a moment of cinematic passion, he rises to his feet and defeats evil.

Which is the same pattern showed in other "heroic battles". Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan, for example, never finish a movie without bravely offering their very lives as sacrifice to destroy evil.

But, you see, this "hero almost dies but instead wins" pattern, this incredibly well-worn but beloved staple of Hollywood movie, is drawn from the Cross of Jesus Christ. And as you see this, your life can be further transformed "into the likeness of His Son, Jesus". How can you ever be more like Jesus if you don't see Him more and more clearly?

Not that Jesus is Jackie or John -- almost dying but able in the end to rise above evil. No. Jesus is Jesus who confronts evil and defeats evil by not defending Himself. In fact, Jesus worked very, very hard to stir the hatred and fear of the religious leaders of His day against Him so greatly that they happily engineered His crucifixion.

And even as they took Him, beat Him and tortured Him on His way to the most vicious and cruel form of execution known to man -- He did nothing to stop them or defend Himself. At His Word, He could have had a heavenly army of tens of thousands of angels descend to deliver Him, but He was silent.

What exactly happened at the Cross? The Bible tells us of two things that took place there: (1) He took the just consequences of all people's sins upon Himself (death); and (2) He defeated Satan and all the wicked demons of darkness. This is Good News for everyone -- that Jesus has provided each and every person who's ever lived and sinned (all of us, that is) with freedom from the consequences of that sin (death). That is, whoever, after personally encountering the Person of Jesus in their spirit, trusts this work of Salvation that He's freely presenting, receives the benefit of the Victory at the Cross. Which includes both deliverance from (1) the penalty of death, and (2) the bondage of darkness and evil.

But let's look closely at the role of "Jesus as Hollywood Hero". You might say that there are degrees of victory the hero experiences over evil: There's the story which ends with the villain being trapped in weakness, hanging by his fingertips to the crumbling edge of a cliff as the hero cooly uses the toe of his boot to break his hold and plunge evil to its crushing death far, far below. Which is hardly "heroic" at all. Then you have the story which ends with the villain still strong, but facing an even stronger "hero", and you get to see the "hero" wipe up the floor with the bad guy. Which is a little bit more "heroic". Then you have the story of the hero who is himself wounded, weakened, but manages to defeat the villain despite great pain and near death himself. And this is the most typical "hero". In each of these scenarios, we see that however suspenseful the battle may have been, the "hero" was stronger than the villain, and "good" is "stronger" than evil. Great moral. Feel-good ending and the hero kisses the woman he just saved.

But Jesus takes the "hero" business to new heights. He combats the villain by doing nothing to defend Himself. In fact, Jesus combats the villain by provoking the villain to kill Him. Not "almost" kill Him. Kill Him. DEAD.

Hmmmm. Now, that's a twist on the old plot line. Except that in Jesus, we're not talking about Hollywood and movie plots -- we're talking historical reality in which the Prince of the Power of the Air, the King of Darkness and Holder of the Keys of Death, defeated the Good Guy, Jesus.

Which probably felt really good to the Prince of Darkness for a couple of days.

Until Sunday came. And the Hero rose from the dead.

Now, see what's going on here: Jesus goaded Satan to do everything he could possibly do to defeat Him and to destroy the Heavenly Kingdom which He had brought. Jesus put Himself completely into Satan's hands and Satan destroyed Him.

Well, at least Satan thought that's what he was doing. When all the "hero" does is to kick loose a villain's fingers from a precarious hold on the cliff's edge, causing the villain to fall to his death, how "victorious" does that "victory" seem? Not much, at least not compared with the "hero" who almost dies in the process of defeating the villain. That "victory" seems much greater.

But it's even a greater Victory when the Hero first offers Himself to the villain to be destroyed -- is destroyed -- then still wins the battle! Though the devil had won, he still loses in the face of the unquestionable power and greatness of the One he had "defeated".

Do you ever "resist evil"? (If not, why not? If so -- who wins?) What kind of a "hero" do you want to be (unless you want to be the victim, instead!)

There's only one Hero in all of human history Who showed complete power and victory over evil -- not that He struggled against evil and finally won, but that the worst that evil could do to Him turned out to be less powerful than His Resurrection Life!

So, here's another twist in understanding the Victory of the Cross and the Treasure of Easter in your life, today. You can ("heroically") fight against the evil one and seek victory over him -- or you can first trust your being one with Christ, then drop your sword and let him win! As you die with Christ, you will be raised with Christ -- sharing His eternal, Resurrection Life -- and evil will no longer rule over you.

This is truly the Easter Message... that we can rest assured and confident in God that even when the Devil has totally won in our lives, in Christ he has totally lost. One close friend, for example, recalls an entire year after a devastating, personal defeat in which he essentially hid out in his bedroom with endless bottles of wine -- living in (as far as he understood) complete and total defeat spiritually, personally and relationally. But now he looks back on that "lost year", he looks at the place of God's Favor and Victory he's enjoying today, and he sees clearly that when the devil had completely won in his life, in fact he was completely defeated -- in Christ!

Not that this ending hasn't also been seen in Hollywood -- when Obi Wan Kanobi deliberately dropped his light saber and received a killing thrust from Darth Vader, he demonstrated faith in resurrection life. And when Gandolf the Grey turned back in the Mines of Moria to die at the fangs and claws of Balrog, he knew that that Life within him was, even in death, greater than the evil even in the moment that evil slaughtered him. When "evil has won", it has soundly lost.

Ultimately, the story of the "Great Hero vanquishing the Evil One" is your story and mine. It's not for our entertainment, but for our spiritual transformation. Every opportunity we have in stories, films or other media to see another reenactment of the Victory of Our Hero over darkness, death and all demonic powers, is an encouragement for us to face our God-ordined confrontations against evil, face them with neither fear nor sword but faith, and know that the Power that swells within us is Greater than any power that resides in the world.

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net
www.KingdomScribes.net/forum

"Defiling" the Temple of God

2009-03-23T00:21:00.001-07:00

1Cor 3.16f:
Know ye not that ye are the Temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the Temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the Temple of God is holy, which Temple ye are.

Taking verses out of context allows for some wonderfully creative speculation -- but loses Truth along the way. And these two verses are frequently taken out of context.

By that I mean that in the verses immediately prior to this passage, the apostle Paul is completely clear as to what he means by "defiling the Temple of God".

If we take this out of context, we can speculate about what it means to "defile the Temple of God". Perhaps this means to recognize women as priests or pastors? Maybe ordaining homosexuals or even countenancing "doctrines of devils"?

But no -- Paul is completely specific. In verses 3 & 4, he spells out the "offense" by which the Temple of God is "defiled":

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, "I am of Paul"; and another, "I am of Apollos"; are ye not carnal?

The "offense" that "defiles the Temple"? A sectarian spirit. Creating divisions within the Church in which there can be no divisions. ("Is Christ divided?") And worse yet, doing so from a proud arrogance of intellectual superiority. Which is why Paul follows 3.16f with this denouncement in verses 18ff:

Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So then, no more boasting about men!

What is it, then, which "defiles" the Temple of God (which is His Body, broken for you -- this do in remembrance of Him...)?

Arrogantly dividing the visible Church into sections at variance with each other.

For just a moment, let's consider the words (in KJV), "defile" and "destroy". "If any man defile... him shall God destroy..." What's the difference between "defile" and "destroy"?

Nothing. In the Greek in which Paul originally wrote, both words are the same -- phtheiro. Strong's defines this as "to corrupt, to destroy". The KJV inadvertently removes a certain "poetic irony" by using two, different English words to translate this one Greek word. It is better to read it thus:

"Whoever destroys the Temple of God, will, by God, be destroyed."

And what is the evidence that mere, carnal men have set about to destroy the Temple of God? What does Paul mean?

1Cor 1.12f:
What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided?

And this...

1Cor 3.3f:
You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?

At this point, we can take one of two courses. We can wipe the sweat from our collective brow and say, "Thank God we're not in those people's shoes..." Or, we can seriously consider whether this warning from Paul ("he will, by God, be destroyed...") might apply to the Temple of God today.

How might it look if Paul were writing this letter to us today?

What I mean is this: One of you says, “I'm Baptist”; another says, “I'm Pentecostal”; one says, “I follow Calvin”; another, “I follow Arminius”; still another says, “I follow Jesus.” Is Christ divided?

Pretend it isn't so -- but answer me this: Does the dividing up of the Body of Christ into sections contrary to one another manifest to the world the Unity of the Body of Christ?

It isn't until chapter 11 of this letter to the Corinthian saints that Paul ministers the Solution:

1Cor 11.23:
I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread and broke it, saying, "This is My Body..."

"We who are many," he said in the previous chapter, "are made One Loaf..." And verse 29 warns that whoever refuses to recognize the Body of Christ, "eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have died."

Now -- does having a variety of "churches" in a community require that we be divided? Not necessarily. Are "denominational differences" or "theological distinctions" necessarily destructive to the Unity of the Temple of God? Not necessarily. We can allow our brothers and sisters the opportunity to worship in ways familiar to them, and yet live as One in Christ. It is possible. We can do so.

But it isn't the life-style to which we've become accustomed.

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net
www.KingdomScribes.net/forum

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Does Anyone Care About Spiritual Authority Anymore?

2009-03-16T19:53:00.000-07:00

Recently, while looking for a book on Amazon.com, the site automatically suggested I "also might be interested in" some books -- several on "Apostolic Authority".

To be honest, I'm not "interested" in "authority" -- "apostolic" or otherwise, since my main concern with "spiritual authority" is to stay away from "lording it over" people as the Gentiles do... (Mt. 20.25)

Still, there are a lot of "christians" today trying to make sense of the cluster of issues relating to "spiritual authority", "apostolic ministries", "Five-Fold ministers", "church order" and so forth. One thing I simply can't understand is why -- when everyone and his uncle are being consulted for their opinions -- why no one seems to pay attention to what the Bible says about it.

Seriously -- doesn't anyone care?

Book after book, conference after conference today is disseminating "information" about "apostles", "apostolic ministries", "apostolic centers", "apostolic authority", ad nauseum -- but I have yet to see a clear and simple biblical basis for these teachings. Instead of drawing such teachings from the Word, explanations and arguments seem to be plucked magically from the air or drawn from the vast "experiences" of some self-appointed "expert".

Honestly, if the ministry of an "apostle" is legitimate for the Church today, surely we all recognize that it hasn't been accepted as legit for centuries -- and thus there can't be a group of "experienced experts" from which to draw. Seriously -- everyone is on a level playing field of personal ignorance when it comes to understanding these issues. Thus, being careful to draw all conclusions and all teachings from the Scriptures should be the Keynote of every conference or dialogue concerning apostolic ministries.

But I see almost no such teachings being based on clear Scripture. Again I ask -- does anyone care?

Not too long ago, our ministry issued a white paper on what the Bible says about apostolic ministries in today's Church, and the exercise of "spiritual authority" in general. Today we're posting the summary of nine conclusions we reached in that paper -- conclusions we reached from clear Scripture. The Scriptural support for each conclusion can be found in the white paper which is available at no cost. Feel free to download a pdf copy of "Apostolic Ministries in the 21st Century". We'll be happy to clarify or discuss any of the following conclusions, but before contacting us to do so, please download the white paper and read it. Why should we have to explain what is already explained?

Summary Conclusions:

(1)    Nowhere does the Bible define "apostle"... therefore we must not "define" an "apostle" and call it God's Word.

(2)    No two apostles will look the same or minister the same. (We can see this by considering what we know about Peter, and comparing it to Paul, to Barnabas and to other apostles. This variety also fits the pattern of 1Cor 12.4-11.)

(3)    "Apostolic authority" operates as do all spiritual "rulers" in the Church – primarily as mature, spiritual guides, leading into spiritual maturity those Believers who yield to their counsel (Heb 13. 7 & 17). The only, biblical exceptions are possibly in times of a congregation's spiritual crisis or fledgling immaturity. Nowhere in the Bible can "apostolic authority" be shown to parallel natural, human authority. There is no demonstrable, biblical support for "apostolic succession" or any other ecclesiastical "church authority". In fact, any leader in a church who tries to make out apostolic ministry to be controlling is merely trying to fit the work of the apostle into the traditions of men (which Jesus emphatically renounces in Mt 20.25, Mk 10.42 & Lk 22.25.) Apostolic authority edifies & builds; it encourages & comforts, much as does the prophetic ministries in the Church. (1Cor 14.3)

(4)    Nowhere in the New Testament is there any support to their being an "apostolate" as an institutional church office which is capable of being passed on (apostolic succession). Nor is the idea of a "ruling apostolate" consistent with the leadership depicted from Acts through the Epistles — a leadership that is collegiate and non-authoritarian. Such church leadership is, moreover, faithfully consistent with the teachings on spiritual leaders being leaders in humility and servanthood.

(5)    "Apostleship" does not a "government" make... "Apostleship" (Greek, "apostole"), used four times in the New Testament, is used three times of Paul. In the context of these three verses , "apostleship" doesn't refer to the "office" Paul "filled" but instead refers to the "mission" the apostle is sent on by Christ... i.e. Paul's "apostleship" was his divine commission to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.

(6)    In line with (3) is the important observation that nowhere does the Bible directly link apostles (or the "five-fold") with "government" or "governors" of individuals or congregations in the Body of Christ.

(7)    The role of an apostle (along with the other "five-fold gifts") is expressly delineated in Eph 4.11ff – it is [kartartismos] to mend the saints, to prepare them, build them up or complete them for their ministry works. This is the closest thing to a definition of "apostle" found in the Bible, yet is also the working "definition" for the other five-fold ministry gifts.

(8)    Wuest (Word Studies in the Greek New Testament) and others point out historical references from Paul's day to the use of the word "apostol" (the Greek word for "apostle") as an ambassador representing another person (king?) or power (kingdom?) – namely one who is sent on a commission who is given both credentials of authenticity and the responsibility of executing the orders of the one sending him. Again – keep the difference clear between what the Bible actually says, and what ideas people import into the Bible! Valuable as is Wuest's research into non-biblical, historical references – they're non-biblical! Don't build dogmatic doctrine on non-biblical information.

(9)    It's safe to say that these terms – apostles, prophets, etc. – are not titles, but functions. They don't describe identities, but activities. For example – Paul was an apostle not because some group ordained him and entitled him "apostle", but because certain people received him in that function. In fact, to those who did not receive him in that function, he was not their "apostle".

Please understand that these nine conclusions are not my opinions but are easily and clearly derived from Scripture. Read the white paper, consider its arguments, and then encourage others who attempt to join into the contemporary Apostolic Dialogue to begin all discussions with an admission of what the Bible teaches.... and (just as importantly) admitting what it doesn't teach. What Foundation do we have in the Body of Christ other than the Word of Truth?

After all, there is no other Foundation that can be laid.

Emil & Shell Swift
KingdomScribes.net
KingdomScribes.net/forum

A Pernicious Unity in the Church?

2009-03-10T12:00:00.000-07:00

Did you know that people who cry out for "unity in the church" may be dangerously "authoritarian"?

Well, I didn't either. I recently read an article "exposing the dangers of church unity" and I thought -- despite some merit in the caution -- it provides an opportunity for rethinking what our "unity in Christ" actually looks like.

The argument against "Christian unity" is simple:

Authoritarian groups make a plea to others (both individuals and groups) to "come together into unity"... Specifically, though, they mean, "Join us, accept our spiritual paradigm and don't question our accepted teachings."

This is a legitimate concern. Church-groups throughout the ages have tried to smother dissenters and nonconformists by making an earnest appeal to, "But you must be one with your brothers and sisters!" And group membership is maintained similarly: "You must not leave our group because you'd be breaking our unity!"

Here's a quick response that I'll fill out further below: If a person's ideas or actions can "break unity" -- that "unity" is not the Unity of Christ.

The Truth is that "Unity in Christ" is not dangerous but it is (in fact) unavoidable. Confusion arises when people discuss "unity" and yet they use the word in different ways in the same conversation. "Unity" can be defined organizationally or organically.

"Organizational unity" is the kind of unity that authoritarian groups live by. This is a unity of people joined together in an organization -- be it a local church congregation, an international religious denomination or even the local Boy Scouts. This "unity" arises from compliance on the part of every group member to sets of rules, expectations and beliefs that insure that the organization will be able to further its goals and purposes -- whatever they may be. If a person chooses to believe differently or refuses to act in accordance with expected group behavior, it "breaks unity".

When the Church, the Body of Christ, is visible in local manifestations, it will tend to display certain characteristics of the "unity" described above -- largely because every group of human beings will develop their own group structures, intentional or not. That means that if someone goes into an area that has never heard the Name of Jesus proclaimed, and people hear and believe in Jesus, and the Church becomes locally visible -- the people who group together will form organizational structures (no matter how "loose" the structures may seem.)

But these organizational structures do not display Unity in Christ. The Unity of the Church, our Unity in Christ, is not organizational -- and great harm is done to people in the Name of Jesus when confusion between these two "unities" is allowed to persist.

"Organic unity" is displayed all around us in our natural environment. If you look at a magnolia flower, we can see that it's one with the tree. We understand (though we can't really see it) that nourishment flows from the roots, up the trunk, out the branch to the beautiful blossom. No matter what the magnolia flower thinks about doctrine, it's one with the tree. In fact, it's silly to even consider the blossom as "thinking" because the entire tree structure is not a "thinking creature" but a "living creature". The focus of a Magnolia bloom isn't its behavior, its committedness, or even its attitude -- the focus is on the bloom being an organic part of the tree's overall structure.

And THIS is the nature of the Unity of the Body of Christ. It's simple, though one of the greatest of mysteries, that when a person trusts in Jesus Christ as their Savior, a supernatural Event occurs and Heaven makes that person and Jesus One. From that Moment on, that person (according to Scripture) is in Christ and Jesus Christ is in that person.

In summary, every person who has trusted in Jesus for salvation, having been made One with Him, has been made one with each other as well.

Some people (calling themselves "Christian") object to this spiritually organic reality. They insist that if another person doesn't agree with their particular set of "church teachings" or "church rituals" or certain "moral standards" that they cannot possibly be one with that person. There can be "no unity" and certainly no "fellowship".

But the only criteria for one person being in unity with another is whether or not they are in Christ. If this person and that person are both in Christ, then they are One with each other. Already. Now, not later. A Finished Work.

Simply put, the followers of Jesus Christ are not called by God to create church unity, or to draw people into unity, because Unity already exists. The followers of Jesus Christ are instead called to manifest an already existing Unity that we share, in Christ.

You might say that true Unity in Christ trumps religious, organizational unity. It's always nice to hang around people who agree with you and share similar interests. But to call that "Christian Unity" is repulsive -- it so totally demeans the Reality of True Unity Who is the Person of Jesus Christ Himself.

Since the followers of Christ are not called to produce Unity (which already, unalterably exists), what are we called to do? We are to "make every effort to carefully guard the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace!" [Ephesians 4.3]

We're not called to create Unity but to honor it.

What does this "organic unity" look like?

When God gives me an opportunity to touch the life of another, I must (in Christ) love that person. If there's any way in which I can bless them, I bless them (because after all, I'm in Christ and Christ is in me, living through me.) If I can do something that edifies or builds up that person, I will (because after all, I'm in Christ and Christ is in me, living through me.)

Before I Love that person, do I check them out to make sure they share my doctrinal convictions or denominational commitments? Well, maybe I do, but Jesus doesn't. He Loves presumptively. His is a "First Strike" Love.

Before I bless a person who has been brought within my sphere of influence (and thus within Jesus' Sphere of Influence), do I determine if they are a "Christian" or not? Maybe I do, but Jesus doesn't. He Loves presumptively. His is a "First Strike" Love.

The way in which the Unity of the Body of Christ is manifested is that we Love one another. Presumptively. With a "First Strike" Love. Is the person whom we face a Baptist? Love them. Is the person whom we face a Wiccan? Love them. Is the person whom we face a Calvinist? Love them. Is the person whom we face a used car salesman? Love them. Love them presumptively.

Is it really that hard to understand that "Christians" who consider "evangelism" to be the greatest ministry of the Body of Christ are missing the greatest Power Evangelism available to us by not "guarding the unity" of the Church in Love?

After all, the world which is lost in darkness and lies waste under the malignancy of sin and death will recognize that we are the True Followers of Jesus Christ -- by our Love. [John 13.35]

Above all, understand that God is not afraid of Freedom. People are often afraid of Freedom. Religious people live in a "control" or "be controlled" world. To frightened, self-focused individuals, the call to "unity" may seem like a call to stability, safety and peace -- but it's actually a call to bondage, expectation, obligation -- of mind, soul and body. "Join us -- be like us -- think like us -- be one!" From this "unity" the Body of Christ will never be raised up!

This is the Day. This is the Season of the Preparation of the Bride of Christ! This is the Time for the building up of the Body of Christ into the full stature of the Person of Jesus Christ in this world. This Promise of God will become a present reality as we manifest our already existing unity in Christ, building up one another in presumptive Love.

Emil & Shell Swift
KingdomScribes.net
KingdomScribes.net/forum

Must We Find a Balance Between Old & New?

2009-02-27T22:37:00.000-08:00

Jesus says, "No one puts old wine into a new wineskin..." In that day, He referred to the spiritual revolution He brought to Israel 2,000 years ago, but He also set in place a pattern that's resounded throughout the ages since then. When God sets His Hand to doing a New Thing, it isn't wise to try and hold onto the old. Like in the Wilderness, when the Cloud by Day and the Fire by Night begins to move, just break up camp and move on into the Unknown -- guided safely not by intellect and sight, but by His close Presence.

In moving from the Old Wineskin into the New, must we simply "dump" the "old" in place of the "new"? Do we burn our churches and fire our pastors, throw out old Sunday School materials and the institution of Sunday School as well? Do we drop out of church or have our church drop out of its denomination? What change is needed to "forsake the Old Wineskin"?

The New Testament shows us that even the great spiritual Revolutionary, Paul the apostle, didn't "drop" everything related to his religious traditions. He incorporated numerous features of Judaism (arguably, the "old wineskin") into the local churches to which he ministered. Public reading of the Word, honoring teachers in the Church, public assemblies every week (or more often), discipling new "initiates" in following Jesus -- these and many other characteristic of Judaism were simply taken from the Old and brought into the New.

Yet seeing that Paul took many characteristics of the "Old" into the "New" is no proof that there are no major distinctions between the two. The "Old" did not simply slip into the "New". In fact, according to history, the Church in Jerusalem never even differentiated itself from traditional Judaism. Jesus' Jerusalem-based followers considered themselves more on the level of what many today call a "completed Jew" -- people having met and trusted in Jesus, their Messiah, but still totally faithful to their Judaic religious rituals, ceremonies and dietary laws.

This "blend of Old and New" didn't last, though. The Roman armies eradicated this temporary mix of accepting the Messiah and yet maintaining legalism when (in A.D. 70) they entered Palestine and destroyed the Jews and their entire nation. Then the Church found itself centered in the Gentile city of Antioch and in Paul's apostolic mission throughout the Roman Empire. The "Jerusalem experiment" of blending Jewish legalism with the Christian freedom was effectively ended. (Not that the legalistic spirit ended -- it's remained the primary tool of Satan throughout all the centuries up to and including today.)

But far too much time and energy today can be wasted in combating the Old instead of simply pressing into the New. Jesus spent little (or no) time in trying to talk people into leaving traditional religious forms in His day and time. His focus, instead, seemed to be on taking people on a Journey along with Him, into the Kingdom of God.

The "Old Wineskin" sort of just got left behind... (Now, there's a "left behind" tale I can, well, get behind...)

Actually, there are many aspects to traditional "churchianity" and familiar "church forms" that are essentially neutral -- neither helping nor hindering our pressing from "Old" into "New Wineskins". If a local congregation wants to sing hymns or sing contemporary songs or not sing at all -- that doesn't impact the fundamental distinction between "Old" wineskin and "New". If a local congregation wants to gather on Sunday or Saturday or Thursday, that's not a fundamental distinction. If a local congregation wants to be "answerable" to a regional presbytery, to a pope or to no one but themselves, it makes no fundamental difference. If they speak in French, Tagalog, English or the tongues of angels, there's no fundamental distinction in so far as being part of God's Now Work of building up the Body of Christ in our day.

So, what does make a difference? What cannot make the transition from the Old Wineskin to the New? In short -- what is the distinction between Old and New Wine?

It's the difference between religion and Relationship.

Actually, this was the difference between Judaism and Kingdom in Jesus' day, and it's still the difference between Old and New today.

What Jesus offered the religious traditionalists of His day was simple and direct: "Eat My flesh and drink My blood." Even though everyone found this demand horrible, it still went right to the heart of Jesus' Gospel:

Salvation comes only through supernatural union with the one and only human being Who ever lived without sin. That is, since Jesus had no personal sin for which He had to die, He could (and did) offer Himself as a substitute to die for your sins and mine -- and (in fact) the sins of the whole world.

The "eat My flesh" and "drink My blood" line refers specifically to a supernatural Act on God's part, that when a person responds to the Good News of Jesus' Victory on the Cross, and trusts in Him for salvation, that person is made one with Jesus Christ. Now THIS is the heart of the "drink My blood" line: eating flesh and drinking blood is a brutally blatant picture of our becoming One with Jesus.

And having become One with Jesus, His Victory over sin and death is now ours as well. Since He's defeated Satan, so have we. Since He's living in Resurrection Life, so are we. And since He's seated in "heavenly places", we are too.

But having died for our sins, having become Sin for us and having won victory over sin and death -- in and of itself does no good for anyone. Each person must receive this marvelous work of salvation in faith, and those who refuse are essentially left in their sins, still weighed by guilt and facing eternal death.

Here's the fundamental distinction between "Old Wineskins" and "New":

Since salvation rests not in human performance or human wisdom but in the completed Work of Jesus Christ, anything that ties one's "salvation" to something other than the Person of Jesus Christ is a false "gospel" -- and part of the "Old Wineskin".

In other words -- any beliefs or activities that come between a person and Jesus Christ is Old Wineskin. Performance orientated. The legalistic religion in unfailingly new forms.

Now -- let's get to the issue of church traditions and forms. Paul the apostle (to the saints at Corinth) rebuked them fiercely for their carnality. He wasn't rebuking them for immorality (though they were) nor for their self-ishness (though they were.) He called them carnal because they were divided. "One of you says he's of Paul, another says he's of Apollos, another of Cephas and some even say they are of Jesus..."

But did Paul or Apollos die for your sins? Not at all! There is no other Foundation that can be laid but the Person of Jesus Christ. (The Foundation of the Church isn't the doctrine of Christ, but the Person of Christ. It isn't what we know but Who we know.)

The followers of Apollos had moved away from their Foundation -- they were dividing themselves from all those who were in Christ in order to only fellowship with those who were "in Apollos". The followers of Cephas (Peter) had moved away from their Foundation -- they were dividing themselves from all those who were in Christ in order to only fellowship with those who were "in Cephas". Even some of the followers of Paul had moved away from their Foundation and divided themselves from all those who were in Christ in order to only fellowship with those who were "in Paul".

This reality of dividing themselves away from all those who are in Christ based on sectarian divisions is what Paul called their "carnality". He accused them of being "merely human." And he told them to repent.

Ephesians 4 describes that fantastic Reality of the building up of the Body of Christ until it attains in this world the full measure of the stature of Jesus Christ. But it's clear from Paul's Word that the Body of Christ will never be built up from Apollos, from Paul and from Cephas. Nor will the Body of Christ will ever be built up from the Methodists, from Presbyterians, from Pentecostals or from Catholics. The Body of Christ will only be built up from the Church's only Foundation -- from the united Love and ministry of all those who are in Christ.

Undivided. One. One -- just as the Father and Jesus the Son are One. In Love. In Love just like the Father Loves the Son and the Son Loves the Father. Loving one another. Honoring one another. Putting one another's needs and interests above our own -- with no sectarian divisions amongst us.

Back to our Opening Question: Must we find a "balance" between pressing into the New Wine or honoring the Old Wineskin? Or must we "dump" the "old" in place of the "new"?

We can stay in the "Old Wineskin" and push for the "New" as long as we aren't deceived into thinking that our little "division" of the Body of Christ is going to be the means whereby the Body of Christ will be built up today. The Body of Christ is going to be raised up into a visible Presence in this earth when the saints build in unity from one and only One Foundation.

Maybe you can stay within old and familiar religious forms -- but your heart cannot stay within those sectarian forms. Your Love cannot stay within those forms. You don't have to get out of your "church", but you have to get your "church" out of your heart. Understand that what a person commits in time, talent & treasure needs to be focused on God's priorities according to His heart. If a person's priority is to maintain a religious organization that's familiar to them or to maintain religious programs that have a "good impact" on the lives of others or the community in general -- they're not going to be part of the building up of the Body of Christ. They may do good, but they'll not be able to fulfill Eph 4 from within their divisions.

But if your priority is to take up your part in the building up of the Body of Christ (à la Eph 4), then your time, talents & treasure need to flow into whatever best accomplishes that priority.

Placing your time, talent and treasure directly into what builds up the Body instead of building merely human (carnal) agendas is not easy. We are driven by familiar patterns and traditional opportunities. But our resources must be dispersed by the leading of God in order to have supernatural and eternal impact. This kind of giving is not as easy for you to recognize as a plate passing in front of your nose every Sunday. That's much easier to see. But (in fact) it may be a "misappropriation of funds".

But then, who's to say? Well...
Jesus.

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

www.KingdomScribes.net/forum

Gimmie That Ol' Time Religion -- NOT!

2009-02-24T16:04:00.000-08:00

"If it's good enough for Paul and Silas, it's good enough for me..."

Of course, the first time I heard that line was from someone trying to defend the King James Version of the Bible (the good, ol' textus receptus...) The joke being that Paul never used the KJV, much less the English language, which didn't exist in his day.

But there's another joke spreading through churchdom today that's really similar. It's that Christians today need to "dump" their various church forms and "return to the New Testament church."

The joke being (this time) that just as English didn't even exist 2,000 years ago, neither did some kind of consistent "church form". Even though in Paul's epistles he mentions things that existed such as "elders", "deacons" and so forth, nowhere is there any definition of these terms and no explanation of a "local church structure" is given. Well -- except for in 1 Cor, and we'll get to that in a second.

Quite a number of local churches are mentioned in the NT (like Galatia, Rome, Laodicea, etc.) But actually, there is one local church in the NT that matches the churches we have today in America and throughout the rest of the world. It's the church at Corinth.

The spiritual theme of 1 Corinthians is simple (1.10 & 3.3):

As long as the Church is divided -- some saying "I am of Paul" and others "I am of Apollos" and others "I am of Peter" -- then you are yet carnal and walking in your flesh.

In today's terms, this could be rendered like this:

As long as the Church is divided -- some saying "I am a Methodist" and others "I am Pentecostal" and others "I am RCC" and others "I am evangelical" and others "I am fundamentalist" and others "I am Orthodox" and others "but I am out of Renewal" -- then you are yet carnal and walking in your flesh.

The rest of the letter to Corinth lays out Paul's plan for how they can repent of their sectarian spirit and instead press into effectively building up the Body of Christ...

Let's look at the Solution Paul lays out. After all, if the Problem fits, probably the Solution will also.

Problem: "...that there be no divisions among you..." (1.10)

Solution: "...no other foundation can be laid than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ..." (3.11)

Many people today, having left their familiar "churches" behind them, are happy to hear this Word from Paul and are instantly ready to go out with sledge hammers and bulldozers and tear down institutional churches.

Yet Paul's Solution doesn't call for an iconoclastic reaction. It doesn't call for any negative reaction at all. His Solution calls for a Positive Reaction: If you see yourself participating in a divided Church, then return to the Foundation -- Who is a Person -- and begin to discern the Body of Christ.

If your community has a Baptist Church, a Presbyterian Church, a Catholic Church, a Community Church and a Apostolic Faith as Once Delivered to the Saints Church -- these don't need to be destroyed or even deserted! But, when it comes to discerning the unity of the Body of Christ, the sectarian division they may cultivate must be ignored by any and every follower of Christ.

Here it's important to remember that there is only One Church in this world. That means that in my town, there is only One Church. Now, there may be numerous manifestations of that Church, but they are not "the Church". Becoming a member in the "Baptist Church" (as I have) does not make me a member of "the Church".

The only way I can become a member of "the Church" is to trust in Jesus Christ for my salvation -- and in that faith, Heaven makes me one with Christ. And then I am a member of "the Church".

And if someone else is also in Christ, we together are one in Christ and we are called to build one another up -- no matter what building that other person goes to for "church", no matter what doctrine they personally hold to, and no matter what political or social ethics they treasure. If that person is in Christ, and you are in Christ, then you are one.

Let's just forget about any ol' Time Religion -- New Testament or Gradma's -- and repent of the sectarian spirit Paul rebukes. Then (and not until then) maybe we can start building one another in Love, into the full measure of the stature of Jesus Christ. (Eph 4.12)

Emil & Shell Swift
KingdomScribes.net
KingdomScribes.net/forum

Will We Ever See the Body of Christ Stand Up?

2009-02-21T00:16:00.001-08:00

Let's start with the punch line, then we'll take a look at where it came from. The Body of Christ, described in Eph 4 as being built up into "the whole measure of the fullness of Christ", has never yet been seen. Paul the apostle and the architect [architekton] of the Church (Christ's "building"), has shown us the vision of the mature Body of Christ... but the world has not yet seen this spiritual Body, manifested in its maturity.

There are gainsayers who claim that we never will "see" the "whole measure of the fullness of Christ" until this Age is over and Jesus has come again. But when you read the Scriptures telling us of God's Plan for His children to build one another up into this visible, manifest Organism called the Church, every indication is that it is to happen in this Age.

Here's the punch line: The Body of Christ will rise into its full manifestation, its full measure, when we want it to. But it will not arise out of the traditional, institutional church forms -- it will arise despite them.

This comes from the Architect himself -- Paul, in his First Letter to Corinth. In chapter 1, after his salutation, he strikes immediately into the theme of his letter: The saints in Corinth are carnal because instead of manifesting their unity in Christ, they have divided themselves into antagonistic and competative groups. His words, 2,000 years ago, were these:

Each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” -- 1Cor 1.12

But today, some 2,000 years later, the Spirit of the Lord repeats the same:

Each of you says, “I am a Baptist,” or “I am a Methodist,” or “I am of Rick Warren,” or “I am of true Orthodoxy.”

Tell me that it's not the same! Honestly look at the disdain one "church" has for another, the careful exclusion of one group of Believers against another ("Oh! Others worship God according to their own traditions, but we're doing it the right way.") The envy that rises in the heart of a pastor when, on Sunday morning, he passes a church of another brand and counts the cars in the parking lot. The caution about not allowing the people in your church to get too involved with those in another church for fear that a gifted and exciting "minister" might "steal the sheep".

The same sectarian spirit that had overwhelmed the Church in Corinth is one of the most obvious, and pitiful, characteristics of churchdom today. And the fruit is the same, and the "cure" is the same.

Read Paul's denouncement again of the Corinthian saints: "Each of you says, I am of..." Do you think that Paul hoped the Church could be raised up, that Christ could be manifested to the unbelieving world, through these very divisions and sects?

God forbid. But don't miss Paul's demand! He didn't demand that these divisions be dismantled. He didn't demand that those who "followed Apollos" recant of their love and appreciation of Apollos, or Peter, or even Paul himself.

Paul demanded that they return to the only Foundation which could be laid -- and that is the Person of Jesus Christ. He didn't attack the opposing sects, but instead ignored them as he argued for all the Believers to return with their whole hearts to their common union in Christ.

And he demanded that they build up the Church, God's "building", from that Foundation.

There is clearly no room to consider that Paul imagined that the divisive, sectarian Believers of Corinth could raise up the Body of Christ from their sects. They had to leave their divided hearts, return to a clear discernment of the Body of Christ, and build one another from their shared unity in Jesus Christ.

So, today the message is just the same. The Body of Christ, built by each and every member of that Body, in Union with Christ and in unmitigated, unequivocal, complete, total, outright, utter, out-and-out and undiluted Love for one another, will never arise from traditional "church" forms in their obscene divisiveness. For (according to Paul) these divisions in the followers of Christ are carnal, and demonstrate that such "christians" are being "merely human". [1Cor 3.3]

People don't need to bother with tearing down these traditional church forms -- they need only to tear them out out of their hearts. Freed to discern the true Body of Christ in Love, they are then positioned to be "equipped" and "prepared" to be the very ministers who build up one another, and in so doing, bring into view of the world at large the full measure of the stature of Jesus Christ.

Go to your favorite congregation! Listen to your favorite doctrinal preaching! Participate in your favorite religious rituals! Only, give up any vain imagination that by doing so the Body of Christ will be built. Only when we've left our arrogant divisiveness and discerned that we are One with all those who are One in Christ, and press into building up all those whom God gives opportunity to build up -- then, and only then, will we see the children of God...

"...grow up into Him Who is the Head, that is, Christ; and from Him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work." [Eph 4.15f]

Emil & Shell Swift
KingdomScribes.net
KingdomScribes.forum
KingdomScribes.InJesus.com

Forget the Python Spirit -- Beware of Spiritual Experts!

2008-12-08T11:44:00.001-08:00

Some years back I read of a contest held in the Netherlands in which people submitted their definitions of "expert". Tongue-in-cheek, the submission which seemed funniest and most accurate took Number 1: "An expert is a person who knows no more about a subject than you or I, but has his information better organized and includes a PowerPoint presentation."

How many times have you listened to an "authority" on TV or a public lecture or even a christian conference who blathered on about things that you knew were not accurate? When people share their opinions about politics or educational policies or economic theories, it's possible they might do harm to someone else. But when people spout their theories and suppositions about spiritual things, they can do much greater harm. In 2Tim 3, Paul warns his precious "son in the Lord", Timothy, to be careful about people presenting themselves as "minsters" to the Church. Paul included these words describing such spiritual "experts": "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Chapter three starts with the clarion call, "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come..." and the peril painted here is that of church-goers who are "ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth."

I listened recently to a teacher in a church conference teaching on the Python spirit in Acts 16.16. It amazed me at how many hours and how many sermons he could commit to this topic. Truly, this man seemed to be an expert in the highest significance of that prize-winning definition. Making only occasional forays into the Scripture text itself, he shared personal experiences of encountering the "python spirit" in various cities, churches and people as he'd traveled around on his lecture tour. (Sorry -- ministry circuit.)

When someone says, "Such-and-such happened to me," my first response isn't to reject out of hand what that person says. After all, I wasn't standing in their shoes. But this I do know: When they're claiming that a particular teaching is biblical, it should be clearly derived from Scripture -- not having a mere passing acquaintance with the Word.

But the real problem for most Believers isn't that we live in "perilous times" with spiritual hucksters traveling from town to town, church to gullible church -- the real problem is that far too many Believers don't know how to read the Word and accurately interpret it for themselves. Someone who puts together a prattle of convincing gab, coupled with periodic waves of his or her wand at the Word, are assumed to be faithfully interpreting the Bible... and very, very few church-goers have the understanding or confidence to assess these presentations of "truth" for themselves.

With this in mind -- the solution to the false teachers of these "perilous days" isn't to identify and confront false teachers. The solution is far simpler than that and is based on a two-fold reality: (1) every Believer has (according to John the Beloved) been given a personal Truth Guardian within (the "Anointing" Who dwells within) Whose purpose is to guard each Believer from spiritual deceivers, and (2) the written Word of God is available to all.

The Solution to modern deception is for Believers to become skilled at the simple task of hearing, seeing and interpreting the Living Word of God -- accurately and profoundly -- for themselves.

This points to the heart of the KingdomScribes' ministry. This is why we produced the interactive, computer-based tutorial, Rightly Dividing the Word, as well as launching the KingdomScribes forum in which people are encouraged to "converse about spiritual things affecting the building up of the Body of Christ today" within the context of an accurate interpretation of the Word.

Every congregation of Believers needs to have within it some "KingdomScribes" who are able to lend sound counsel and a helping hand to their brothers and sisters during these "perilous times". Ultimately, the best way to help others is to help them become "KingdomScribes" as well -- moving toward the ultimate vision in which every Believer will be skillfully interpreting the Word and following the inward watchcare of the Holy Spirit accurately, for themselves, instead of merely repeating what some one else in their acquaintence has told them is true.

When we stand at the Judgment Throne, we won't be allowed to say, "But, Jesus -- Pastor So-and-so misled me," because Jesus will simply answer, "No -- for you were misled by your own, carnal desires, ignoring the safe leading of the Living Word I placed within you!"

And so John says...

"The Anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you." -- 1 John 2.27

Emil & Shell Swift
KingdomScribes.net
KingdomScribes.net/forum

Slicing and Dicing the Old Wineskin

2008-12-01T13:22:00.001-08:00

So my friend, Sid, has made the same "journey" that thousands of other church-goers has made -- he's left the traditional church in which he grew up. He didn't disagree with the sermons or get trashed by church gossipers or angered at the elders always pushing for more money. No -- he was fine with all that. But his problem rose out of reading the Scriptures.

Specifically, he read in passages such as Eph 4, Rom 12, 1Cor 12 and Heb 10.19ff a description of how early Believers "did church" and saw that nothing his own church ever did came close to the Bible's description of the gathering of Believers. Possibly the greatest distinction he saw was that his own church (and almost every other one he visited) seemed permanently set in "theater-mode". Whereas in the New Testament, Believers gathered in order to minister to one another, preparing each one to go out into their world and minister the Kingdom of God to those in need, Sid had seen that his church had been designed just like a theater -- soft chairs, sloping floors leading down to the focal point of a single pulpit. In his church, people gathered as "spiritual consumers" but in the New Testament, he saw they gathered as "ministers, one to another".

After Sid left, he began pressing on his other friends and acquaintances still in the church to forsake that church as well. He started a website and started posting his own criticisms of that church (and others in general) in a "heroic effort" to destroy it, keeping it from misleading others. In older times, Sid would have been called an "iconoclast", pulling down old "idols" -- but in today's vocabulary people just called him "bitter" and "vindictive". He's certainly never made the transition from an "old wineskin" into the "new", and in fact hasn't even made it out of the "old" one yet.

As Believers become aware that today's typical forms of "christianity" and "church" are not anything like (and in many respects are contrary to) the Body of Christ as described in the New Testament, many are tempted to walk a path similar to Sid's. But that isn't a path to freedom, but just another variation of religious bondage. The reactionary is tied to that which he reacts against. By spending many waking moments and thoughts to the destruction of an old wineskin, a person is so "tied" to the old (albeit "negatively") that they're never free to discover something new -- something unrelated to the old wineskin. Something called the New Wineskin.

Here's a simple but valuable thought -- once grasped, it releases freedom from the old and entry into the new: Believers who have seen the failure of current forms of "church" or "christianity" don't need to "get out" of traditional church forms...

They only need to get traditional church forms out of themselves.

Nowhere in the New Testament did Jesus try to tear down the institutionalized religious groups of His day. True, He did wield a whip to drive the cattle, sheep, goats, doves and thieves out of the Temple -- but He never tried to bring down the religious system as a whole. He didn't spend any time or effort trying to prove to everyone how the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, scribes or rabbis supported a religious system that needed to be torn down.

Not even with Paul, the apostle. When he was still a Pharisee, still Saul of Tarsus and still "breathing threats" against followers of Christ, Jesus confronted him on the road to Damascus. But from what Paul wrote in the letter to Philippi, chapter three, it's clear that instead of attacking the religious structure of Saul of Tarsus, He led Saul to fall in love with Him. Jesus didn't have to destroy the "old wineskin" for Saul/Paul -- he merely replaced that old wineskin inside Saul's heart with the New Wineskin of His Love.

Once a Believer who "goes to church" has begun to understand that you can't "go to church" because we are the Church; that we don't gather with other Believers to focus on ourselves and what we can get out of it (consumer mentality) but what we can give; that the paid "minister" up front isn't the "minister of the church" but that everyone is "the minister" -- once this paradigm shift has taken place in our hearts, we needn't bother tearing down old religious forms.

The truth is that if the old wineskins are taken from our own hearts, whether we're "inside" or "outside" traditional church forms doesn't matter any more. Jesus is an excellent example and Paul as well: When they ministered, it made no difference if they ministered in the fields, in the houses, in the streets or in synagogues. They were free to minister the Kingdom of God because their hearts were filled with the New Wine of Christ.

In a very real sense, when we toss the old wineskins of traditional churchianity out of our hearts, we become the New Wineskins, filled with the Wine of Christ!

Emil & Shell
KingdomScribes.net
KingdomScribes.net/forum

The Problem With Being Grounded in Scripture...

2008-09-28T02:00:00.000-07:00

I've taught a lot of things now, for quite a few years. Sometimes I find myself mistaken about something -- then I either back-up and correct the error or shut-up and hope no one notices. (Hey -- male ego and all that.) But one way or another, I'm never willing to go on teaching something I've discovered is wrong.

Oddly enough, I've taught people for years that one of the most important things for each and every Christian is to be personally, well-grounded in the Scriptures. Isn't it a shame that I realized only recently how wrong that is?

My mental brainstorm came when reading one famous magazine editor's response to Todd Bentley's admission of marital failure. This editor commented (rightly) that the news of Bentley’s marital troubles would likely further polarize those following the revival. He said that many people have been skeptical about Todd's ministry in Lakeland from day one. These people won't be too troubled by Todd's admission of failure since they already had him trash-canned anyway.

Then this editor contradicted himself. He first says that those of Todd's "followers" who weren't skeptical already were likely to be "spiritually shipwrecked". But then (in contradiction to himself) he said that Todd's infidelity probably wouldn't be an issue for them anyway -- since they're "not grounded in Scripture".

Let me try to understand what his point is: This group -- the people who are "not grounded in Scripture" -- are liable to be "shipwrecked" but won't even have an "issue" with Todd's admission of failure? Which is it? They'll be "shipwrecked", or they won't even have an issue with his spiritual failure -- because they are "not grounded in Scripture"?

Can't have it both ways. But as I tried to figure out whether these pitiful people who are "not grounded in Scripture" are going to be hurt or not hurt (and not even have a problem with infidelity anyway), a bigger issue than Todd's failure suddenly appeared. It dawned on me that I've been teaching something falsely for years. I've been teaching that it's vital for each and every Christian to be personally, well-grounded in the Scriptures.

Wow! How wrong can a guy be? How can I miss the obvious for so long? It's not like I haven't been teaching the truth -- but it's just that that phrase is so off-the-wall! It isn't vital for each and every Christian to be personally, well-grounded in the Scriptures!

No! It's vital for each and every Christian to be personally, well-grounded in the Word.

The Word is a Person. The Scriptures are valuable, but you can be "well-grounded in the Scriptures" and miss the Word. You know -- the Word is Alive! The Word is God and is with God, and He became flesh and dwelt among us! And we're not founded on the Scriptures but we're founded on Jesus Christ. Our salvation, our righteousness, our everything doesn't come from familiarity with the Scriptures -- they come from being in the Living Word Who is the Person of Jesus Christ.

Remember when Paul warned that "the letter kills, but the Spirit brings life"? That's a lot like Jesus -- standing in front of a bunch of religious professionals who had memorized the Scriptures -- telling them that they'd missed the point. That they diligently read and re-read the Scriptures, thinking that in them they had life, when (actually) the Scriptures bore witness to Him, and by rejecting Him they'd totally missed the point. They'd missed Life because they were "well-grounded in Scriptures" but not at all grounded in Christ!

Think for a moment about the Lakeland business. Were you paying any attention to the "christian" bloggers and preachers and editors after Todd's announcement? When the world found out about Todd's infidelity, did you notice, as I did, the immense and vocal crowd of church-goers who whooped and hollered and cried out, "I told you so!"?

But think for a moment: Weren't the skeptics and nay-sayers and the "church-police" well-grounded in Scripture? They present themselves that way.

But if they had been well-grounded in the Presence and Person of Jesus, could they have responded with cat-calls and jeers? I assume that you know Jesus. When Todd confessed publicly, did you see Jesus shout, "I told you so!"?

Actually -- I heard different kinds of things from Jesus. (Yes -- I heard from Jesus about this "situation".) Know what kind of things I heard from Jesus? Things like, "Excuse Me -- did you have your eyes focused on a man in the Lakeland revival, or were you seeing Me in the midst of the healings?" He said, "The work I do is already finished, and no human failure will ever bring it down." He said, "Are you willing to judge your brother when even I haven't come for judgment yet?" He said, "Am I crying out for judgment today, or mercy?"

And I especially heard Him say, "Let Me get this straight -- you honestly believe that you're the one to cast the first stone?"

Hmmmm. I seriously believe that from now on out, I'm going to teach that it's vital for each and every follower of Jesus Christ, to be well-grounded in the Word.

Emil & Shell Swift

Comments can be left at www.KingdomScribes.net/forum

Six Impossible Things to Come From Lakeland

2008-09-17T11:25:00.000-07:00

Has the dust settled enough for Believers to begin appreciating the good that God has and still is bringing out of Lakeland? Traditionally, not only are "Christians" the only warriors who "shoot their own wounded", but when someone famous falls, they have to be punished sufficiently before being referred to in a conversation without everyone wagging their heads with the obligatory, "Oh, my... How terrible..."

That waiting period is biblical, you know. When Miriam and Aaron criticized Moses, God struck Miriam with leprosy -- and even though He healed her (verified by the High Priest, Aaron), Miriam wasn't allowed back into the Hebrew encampment for a week -- establishing a pattern of how to deal with the shame of sin. In the New Testament, that's what shocked people about Jesus' story of the Prodigal Son: the father was shameless, not only watching out for a son who he should have publicly declared "dead", but when that son finally did show up, the father received him immediately with joy. He was supposed to ignore the boy and make him sit in shame on the door stoop for a week first just to see in the eyes of the rest of the community that the father's honor had been properly restored.

But as far as Todd goes, I don't think we need to hold him in any sort of Christian purgatory for awhile so that our Father's honor can be restored.

And that's the first lesson learned from Lakeland: Our Father's honor did not suffer in the face of human frailty. Like it says elsewhere in the New Testament, Todd is God's servant and not ours and Todd's Master will deal with his discipline. Where it's God's business to deal with reproof, our only concern is with mercy.

This flies in the face of traditional Christianity. Traditionally, Christians have leaned toward legalistic reaction to perceived sin. That is, if I perceive your sin, I'll just have to make sure you somehow suffer for it until (and after) you repent. But when, on the hand, I'm in sin but you don't perceive it, I can slide by without having to face your condemnation and judgment.

Well, Believers should never have to face condemnation and judgment. Think about it: If God Himself (and His Son, Jesus) do not condemn us (Rom 8), then who is it that does condemn us? It's we ourselves. And we're a lot more effective about it than the devil himself.

Lesson Two from Lakeland: Every Believer who is in Christ, mourns with the pain and turmoil Todd and his family and friends are experiences, and yet rejoices in the mercy of God, which every Believer can extend in patience and love to those so affected.

Let every "Christian" who opts for harsh judgment be judged with the same measure he (or she) uses.

Lesson Three from Lakeland: This has been another demonstration (sad, but powerful) of the danger of looking at the man in ministry rather than seeing our God at work. When Todd confessed to his sin, it disappointed me in that I knew the suffering he and others would go through because of that sin, but it didn't shake the joy and delight I've had in the Lakeland revival (or "restoration"), because I looked to see God at work, and the "man" up front was never "center-stage" in my eyes. The God I saw in action at Lakeland never fell and never will.

Lesson Four from Lakeland: In line with number three, is number four: Lakeland is yet another wonderful example of how ministry must never be built on one man. In fact, ministry must never be seen as coming from one man, but from every man, woman and child who are in Christ. Yes -- it's wonderful to see a sick person healed supernaturally. It's wonderful to see a person's faith in Jesus Christ take them from darkness into light. But these pale in comparison to what truly is the most wonderful reality of all: seeing the multitudes moving out of spiritual darkness into the Light of Christ Himself, and pressing onward into building and encouraging one another into the full manifestation of the Love of Jesus. This is the Kingdom of Heaven amongst men; this is the of the Person of Jesus Christ in our world today. This is the Gospel of the Kingdom.

Not how many butts are seated in pews on a Sunday morning. Or how many Sunday School busses run, how many sermons get preached or how much the tithes and offerings on any given Sunday. The miracle of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is unseen until the people of God are manifesting their oneness in His Love to a dark and dying world.

Lessons Five, Six and more from Lakeland: We can list a number of areas of slip-shod ministry patterns that can be corrected in the future.

For revivals focusing on the signs and wonders of God, it shows us the need for credible authentication of miracles.

For "apostles" confirming some minister's "work", it demonstrates the need for he Body of Christ to determine what really is an "apostle", how are they to "function", do they have any "authority" and is it or is it not like the "authority of this world"? I deal with these issues in depth in our ministry's white paper, Apostolic Ministries in the 21st Century, which is available for free download as a pdf document.

And one of the biggest areas of correction is the whole "God's police" thing. Hundreds of people across churchdom today have set themselves up as spiritual watch-dogs for "God's people". In the Light of the reality of Who God is and Who HE is in us, this is at best foolish, and at worst, anti-christ in its function. John the Beloved makes it abundantly clear that there are deceivers and antichrists already among us. But no Child of God need fear, for the Anointing of God dwells within us. That is: in every Believer in Christ, the Holy Spirit dwells within and talks to us. He is our indwelling Teacher. Thus (according to John) we have no need for any man to teach us, for the Teacher lives within.

Now, many people throughout churchdom ignore that or dismiss it, and then egotistically present themselves to you as the one who'll keep you safe. You realize, don't you, that it's never safe for a person to try and do God's work for Him? "Move over, God -- I can do it better than You?" Who in the world could do a better job in teaching us spiritual Truth from false, as God Himself? The change needed throughout much of the church is for all self-appointed "watch-dogs" to stop barking up the wrong tree -- and instead begin cultivating and releasing the lives of all individual Believers into the Hands of the Indwelling Holy Spirit. Let God be their spiritual guide, and if they don't know how to make that happen, help them -- don't hijack them.

According to Rom 8, for every person who loves God and is called according to His purpose (see the next verse on that), God promises that He'll turn all things to good. Since I love Him, and I'm called according to His purpose, when Todd (fell), I did not. Nor did I lose anything of value from "Lakeland" because my eye had only been on the Presence and mercy of Jesus, touching the lives of so many with a power and love that He longs to release throughout the rest of the Body today.

Bless you Todd, family and all who are in Christ.

Emil & Shell Swift

For further comments and discussion,

KingdomScribes.net/forum

The Lakeland Apostles

2008-08-13T20:04:00.000-07:00

News of Todd Bentley's marital troubles (legal separation from his wife) has stunned much of churchdom. This is especially troubling to many people who were comforted by the recent show of ministerial support and "apostolic oversight" given by the International Coalition of Apostles (ICA).

C. Peter Wagner's response startled many. Wagner, "apostle" and leader of the International Coalition of Apostles (ICA) , immediately responded by trying to distance himself from Todd. Saying things like, "We are barely acquainted", Wagner now tries to explain away his recent endorsement of Todd's ministry. Last month, he convened a meeting of 17 apostles and various prophets at Lakeland as what he called, "The Lakeland Outpouring Apostolic Team" for the express purpose of bringing credibility to Todd's radical revival ministries.

Wagner's current denials of any association or involvement with Todd sound pretty lame. Not exactly what you'd expect from someone who you could trust to "stand by your side, thick and thin" -- your basic, "all for one and one for all" business. But this situation does point to a critical need in the Body of Christ today: Concerning modern-day "apostles" -- who are they, what are they, and are they even biblical?

After all, if the ICA extended their "apostolic blessing" over Todd (and Wagner personally extended his "apostolic decree" over Todd) then how come his marriage comes to pieces hardly a month later? What's the value of this "apostolic oversight"?

Many church-goers believe that whether apostles are real or not is an issue that "church leaders" need to settle -- and they'll go along with whatever is finally decided. (At least whatever their own denominational or organizational leaders conclude.) But this is not biblical! According to the First Letter of John (not the Gospel!), chapter 2, vv. 26f, every Believer is responsible to decide in their own spirits whether something is Truth or deception. (Not "In their minds" but their spirits.) Read it:

Concerning those who try to deceive you -- the Spirit Whom you received from Christ dwells within you, and you do not need for any man to teach you: The same indwelling Spirit teaches you everything, and is Truth and is no lie, and even as He teaches you, you will dwell in Him.

Whether apostles are for today or not, and (if they are) what do they do and what "authority" do they carry in God -- these are issues for you to determine.

One problem is that so few Believers have the slightest idea of how to even begin to decide about "apostolic ministries". Simply waving one's hand and saying, "Who cares?" is not allowing the indwelling Spirit to teach you!

The best place to start is Scripture! And in order to help, Em&M Ministries has recently published a (free) white paper entitled, "Apostolic Ministries in the 21st Century". It's purpose is simple: rather than tossing around all sorts of claims, opinions and theories, we instead answer the question, "What does the Bible actually say about modern-day apostles?"

The paper is smaller than you might think because the Bible actually says very little about apostolic ministries! But as Believers in the Body of Christ proceed with today's "Apostolic Conversation", being able to start with a clear notion of what the Bible actually does say is immensely valuable.

This white paper isn't the Final Word on "apostles" -- it's the beginning Word. It's O.K. for people to have their own opinions or for them to "hear from God" as to what "apostles" are or aren't. But we can't even begin to converse if we can't start first with what the Bible says. Download here:

KingdomScribes.net/downloads/ApostolicMinistries.pdf

We encourage you to go ahead (if you haven't already done so) and download the white paper, "Apostolic Ministries in the 21st Century". We'd be delighted to discuss your responses, answer your questions or whatever in our KingdomScribes' Forum here:

KingdomScribes.net/forum

Bless you!

Emil and Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

The Failure of "Doing the Word"

2008-07-31T10:25:00.001-07:00

For many years, I've lived and taught that the only right relationship to the Word of God is not to study it but to do it. That is -- many people have read the Scriptures, even memorized them, but they do not put them into consistent, daily practice. This is offensive to God and will subsequently lead to their destruction, according to Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount. The "house that fell, and great was its destruction" represents the life of such a person -- one who has listened carefully to Jesus, but does not obey the Word he has heard.

What's even more spiritually offensive is the person who believes they have "heard the Word of God" by their study of it, but who in fact have merely interpreted the Scriptures to agree with the ideas and thoughts they already have -- and then practice those mistaken notions in the Name of God. These people aren't the focus of today's blog, though, and the mistakes they make could certainly be helped by learning to read the Word of God accurately and profoundly -- which is precisely the goal of our training tutorial, Rightly Dividing the Word, available here: http://tinyurl.com/RDTW-tutorial

Thirty years ago, Jim Durkin, Sr. taught a principle called, "Believe, Confess and Act". At its heart, it taught that true Christians are a people who not only "listen" to God's Word, but put it into action. They both "hear" and they "obey". And yet gradually over the years, I've come to see that at least my understanding of this principle is incorrect.

It isn't that being "a doer of the Word, and not a hearer only" is incorrect -- it's just that it's been taken out of context!

And so has Jesus' admonition in Matthew 7, "he who both hears My Word, and does it..."

Here's the rightful context of this admonition: We must put the Word into action, but there is no human being who can actually do so. Outside of the human person of Jesus, there is no one who can successfully "do the Word"!

In a sense, the idea that we ought to be "doers of the Word" is no more than a revision of the Test of the Law -- that is, according to the apostle Paul, the Old Covenant of Law is "good", but cannot save us -- it can only display our failures. The New Covenant of Christ's Blood is the only means by which we may be saved, and we don't enter into this New Covenant by obedience, but by relationship.

When we trust in Jesus Christ for our salvation, God responds with a supernatural action. It's an action which is instantaneous, but is manifested over a long period of time. This "supernatural action" is that God takes us and makes us one with Jesus Christ. We are from that point on, "in Christ". Since we are "in Christ", then all that is Jesus' is ours, for we are in Him. His Eternal Life becomes ours; His salvation becomes ours; His victory over sin, death and the grave is ours. When we are one with Jesus Christ, all that is His is now ours.

Why is it, for example, that Ephesians says we are (present tense) "seated in the heavenlies"? It's because Jesus Christ is there and we are in Him.

So, precisely in the same way we could not perfectly obey the Old Testament Law, so we cannot "be doers of the Word, and not hearers only". But does this mean we're doomed to failure yet again?

Not at all, because we are in Christ, and He is in us -- He can live His life through us. Jesus is in us, and He wants out!

Consider briefly the Sermon on the Mount: there is no one who can comply with the "injunctions" of the Sermon on the Mount. In fact, the "Sermon" is not a series of "rules" or "injunctions" for us to obey -- it is a portrait, a portrait of the Person of Jesus Christ.

And it is a portrait of any person in whom and out from, Jesus lives.

When the Bible says we must be "doers of the Word, not hearers only", what it's really doing is setting in front of us a goal through which we CAN be doers of the Word -- and the goal is, "I live -- yet not I, for Christ lives in me."

Simply put -- since Jesus is the Word of God, then being a "doer of the Word" means being a "doer of Christ". It doesn't mean, "By a supreme effort, I am going to obey everything that a Christian needs to do," but instead it means, "By setting aside my selfish life, I let Jesus live His life through me."

And you know -- what's best about Jesus living His life through us is that we get to go along for the ride!

Emil & Shell Swift
KingdomScribes.net
KingdomScribes.net/forum

Who is the "Lord, Lord!" Crowd of Mt 7?

2008-07-09T14:41:00.000-07:00

When Jesus taught, people typically became either excited or disturbed -- and often both. One of the problems with most church-goers today is that they can read Jesus' teachings and not be disturbed nearly enough.

For example... consider what Jesus taught in Matthew 7.21f:

Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord", will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but the ones who do the will of My Father in Heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your Name, and in Your Name cast out demons, and in Your Name do many works of power?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you -- depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!"

Yes -- this verse has made a lot of people squirm -- but in fact it should make people do more than squirm. It should bring people to their knees in fear.

Let's read it carefully -- not adding anything to it but not neglecting some of the disturbing parts either.

Consider: Jesus warns that there are going to be people who call Him "Lord" who are not going to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. This points out that something more is required for entry into God's Kingdom than mere lip service.

But just what is "required"? People who enter into the Kingdom of Heaven must "do the will" of Jesus' Father Who is in Heaven.

So, if the difference between "entering into the Kingdom of Heaven" or not depends on us doing "the will of God" -- don't you want to know what the "will of God" is?

Of course, lots of church-goers are quick to say that they already do know what God's will is -- but how odd that what one person says isn't at all what another one says. Here's some examples: The "will of God" is that we evangelize the lost, pray for people to be healed, cast out demons in Jesus Name and do lots of Good Works. Certainly, "the will of God" includes loving one another, obeying the Law of Christ (or maybe the Ten Commandments). Maybe the "will of God" includes things like not getting drunk, not smoking, and not dressing in a seductive manner. And then, some insist that "the will of God" tells them what "church" to attend, what doctrines to believe in, how to worship, how to pray, what verses to memorize -- and the lists go on and on and on and on.

But you do understand, don't you, if you don't get this right, you won't get to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven? The idea that you could actually miss getting into the Kingdom should be a bit frightening. (But so very few people actually take Jesus seriously -- "Oh, no... Not me" they say.)

Let's take a look at the next verse because actually the next verse tells us what the will of God is... and it's NOT any of the above lists! (You best take me seriously, read this Scripture carefully and see if what I'm saying is true or not... After all, it is personally important to you.)

Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord! Did we not prophesy in Your Name, and in Your Name cast out demons, and in Your Name do many works of power?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you -- depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!"

"On that Day" -- What "Day"? You can argue that it refers to some "day" other than Judgment Day, but there aren't a lot of other options that Jesus could have been referring to. So, on Judgment Day, there's a crowd of people in front of Jesus' Throne who are shocked to discover that they're not going to get to go into the Kingdom of Heaven!

Now, some people object when I say IMHO that these people are not only deceived, but they're sincerely deceived. After all, picture yourself as part of that group: do you honestly think you'd stand there and try and scam Jesus on That Day? Try to "pull the wool over His eyes"?

I think not. Which means they're sincere. In other words, they really, truly thought they were doing "the will of God" in their lives.

What were they doing? Well, they said they were preaching the Gospel, prophesying in Jesus' Name, doing miraculous works and casting out demons -- all in the Name of Jesus.

That's what they said. But what did Jesus say they were doing?

He said they were "working lawlessness."

Don't miss the irony. In a sincere effort to please God, these people had laid down their lives in ministry in the Name of Jesus -- preaching about Him, working miracles in His Name and even casting demons out of people. These are power works. God had to be a part of these works somehow.

But Jesus summed up everything they'd done as working "lawlessness." Other Bible versions use words like "sin" and "iniquity" and "wickedness".

Excuse me: These people were NOT running prostitution rings, selling drugs, murdering people. They were telling people about Jesus, praying for them, healing them and breaking demonic powers over them.

Heavens to Betsy -- how could the world have ever stood up under such great wickedness?

Have you preached to people, ministered healing, cast out demons? And if you have, do you belong to this group Jesus rejects? And if not, why not you too? (Other than your natural good looks) why should you be magically spared when many, many other sincere people wind up being rejected? (Unless you don't take Jesus' warning seriously. -- "Oh, no... It can't possibly refer to me.")

The only reason you might be any different is if you're doing the will of the Father.

So, again I ask -- What is the will of the Father? Since it isn't "doing miracles in Jesus' Name", etc., what is the will of the Father? (Is it a "mystery" and if we don't guess right, we'll eternally live to regret it? Or is it likely that these verses might give us a clear indication of what the Father's will is?)

What do these verses tell us? Hear Jesus once more: "Depart from Me... I never knew you."

Written originally in Greek, the word Jesus used is ginosko, and it means to "know" something "from personal experience". There are other Greek words Jesus could have used -- words that mean knowing something "intellectually" like "I know all the attributes of God" or "I know what Jesus did on the Cross". But ginosko refers to personal knowledge -- knowledge gained from personal experience.

Consider the difference between "intellectual knowledge" and "experiential knowledge": Someone asks, "Do you know President Bush?" and I say, "Yeah -- what about him?" And they say, "How come you know him? When did you meet him and how did you get to know him?" And I say, "Oh! I thought you were asking if I know who he is. Sure, I know a lot about him! But, no, I've never personally met him."

Someone says, "Do you know Jesus?" and I say, "You bet!" And they say, "When you spend time with Him, what's He like to talk to?" And I say, "Oh! I didn't mean I actually hang out with Him, chilling. I mean I know about Him because the Bible tells me all about Him and I believe the Scriptures."

But Jesus makes a serious point that the people who get rejected have never been in a personal relationship with Him, a relationship in which He knows them personally and experientially. And if you look over at John 17.3, you'll see that the Bible teaches this relationship, this "knowing experientially", goes both directions.

Pay close attention! This isn't complicated and it isn't merely some theological "smoke and mirrors"! John 17.3 uses this same word (ginosko) in the very same way: "This is eternal life, that people know (ginosko) the Father and He Whom the Father sent [Jesus]."

Notice that what is being "defined" here is Eternal Life. (Aren't you interested in Eternal Life? Don't you want to know how to live eternally?) And "Eternal Life" is defined in verse 3 as "knowing (ginosko) the Father and His Son, Jesus."

Let's put this together and see what kind of sense it all makes. Jesus warns that the only people who'll get into the Kingdom of Heaven are those who do His Father's will -- but (next verse) His Father's will isn't preaching to lost and doing wonderful works including miracles and casting out demons, all in the Name of Jesus.

Apparently, the crowd of people in front of the Throne had been doing "righteous works" even though they were not in a personal, experiential relationship with Jesus.

("I never knew you...")

We can produce good works -- or at least what we think are good works -- from at least two sources: (1) from our fleshly determination to "live for God", or (2) from the leading of God's Spirit. Romans 8 gives us that same dichotomy: live by the natural flesh (its strength, its determination, its resources) or live by the Spirit -- and "those who are led by the Spirit, they are the children of God."

So you want to do the will of the Father, do you? Well -- here's His will: live in union with Jesus Christ; come to know Him more and more and live as He leads (and not by your fleshly determination to do what is "right".)

But why would Jesus call these people -- trying to please Him and trying to do the right things even if they're doing them outside of a personal, experiential relationship with Jesus... Why would He call them "workers of lawlessness"?

Galations reveals to us the powerful freedom that Jesus' death on the Cross brought. And in chapter 5, Paul cries out for us to never lose that freedom Christ brought -- freedom from the obligations of the Law, from having to satisfy God in our flesh and perform for His approval. No! We've been set free from the Law.

But having been set free from the Law and sin and death, we haven't been set free to then live according to the law of our flesh. Not at all! We've been set free from Law, sin and death so that we're now free to be led in our daily lives by the indwelling Holy Spirit. We've been set free from the Law, not to serve our carnal nature, but in order to live as Jesus Christ in this world.

Here's the "lawlessness" Jesus is referring to: Though they were freed to let Jesus live His life through them, freed to be led and guided by the Holy Spirit -- these "wicked" people chose instead to walk apart from the Person and leading of Jesus Christ, and instead pursued religious activities from their flesh and their own self-will. Rejecting personal, experiential leading from the Spirit, they have once again eaten from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, taking the determination of what is "right" and "good" into their own hearts and minds rather than living in a close relationship with God in which He defines what is "right" and "good".

Choosing lives of independence from Jesus and rejecting spiritual interdependence, they became a "new breed" of Lawless Ones... Spiritual "outlaws" satisfied with doing religious works apart from an intimate, experiential relationship with Jesus and the leading of His Spirit.

I know that every church-goer who reads this blog will think that all that they're doing for God is coming straight out of their relationship with Jesus. But in my experience, I doubt much of that is going on. In fact, I see something much different. I see women in the "church" manipulated into feeling obligated to teach Sunday School class, children obligated to not shame their "christian" parents, men pressured to serve on "church" committees or manipulated by temptations of power and importance to serve in public positions; evangelistic "outreaches" in which people participate unwillingly (though they keep their hesitation to themselves -- don't want to reveal that they're less than top-notch "christians"); people who put money into the offering plate (and some even who tithe) out of a sense that if no one else is watching at least God is and He keeps track, too... better stay on His good side.

Why would a Believer tithe if it's neither an obligation nor (in and of itself) "pleasing to God"? If it wasn't a requirement of the church's evangelism course, why would a person share the Gospel with a fellow worker or a neighbor? A Believer would "go to church", pay a tithe, teach a class, pray for a sick person -- if the Spirit living within leads the person to do so.

CONCLUDING ILLUSTRATION

Let's take the woman who teaches Sunday School class. Here's an idea that's sheer blasphemy -- she wakes up one Sunday morning, thinking tiredly how she's just not ready for corralling the kids and playing games and trying to control the uncontrollably energetic little people... She thinks, "Jesus? Am I doing this week after week because it's actually You doing it through me? Or am I just satisfying the expectations of my..." [choose one: Pastor, Superintendent, husband, Mother-in-law, best friend...]

And the thought suddenly occurs, "Jesus -- I may be doing this stuff for You, but are You doing this stuff through me. I know You're not interested in what I can do for You! You're interested in our "romance", our intimacy. I'm done wanting to perform for Your satisfaction and instead, I'd just like to get to know You, and know You a lot better than I feel I do now."

Does she stay home that morning and simply dump her responsibility? Not likely -- as that would not be a loving thing to do to the people she'd made promises to to cover an area of ongoing responsibility. But once she hears from the Lord that that effort on her part is not His work through her, then she talks to her pastor, superintendent or whoever is necessary, explaining that she can't continue carrying that organizational responsibility -- "Let's work out a plan for someone else to take this over or for the class to stop."

Freedom from obligation is not license to follow the urges of the flesh but a release to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, letting Jesus live His life from within. Once this woman is in close enough relationship to Jesus, from that Relationship she can lead the Sunday School class or step out of it, pay a tithe or pay half her wages, decorate the "church" or not, go to "church" or not -- all depending on how Jesus leads within.

Many "church leaders" would consider this some form of "anarchy" -- but the days of pressuring Believers to "live good lives" just to help them avoid "wasted" or "carnal" lives are over. This is the Day of Relationship, the Day in which Believers learn to walk according to the leading of the Holy Spirit (they are the children of God.)

Back to this ex-Sunday School teacher: When this woman stands in front of Jesus' Throne, is He going to say, "But you didn't sweep the church building, you didn't feed My sheep, you didn't prophesy or preach to the lost, you didn't do miracles in My Name and you didn't cast out demons!"

No.

Is Jesus going to say, "You swept the buildings, fed My sheep, cast out demons and healed the sick..."

No. Not at all. Know what Jesus is going to say to this woman?

"Hey! I know you!"

Emil & Shell Swift

www.KingdomScribes.net

P.S. If you'd like to join a discussion about these ideas, please feel free to join our new KingdomScribes Forum and (after registering) open a new topic in the sub-forum, "Currents in the Church" or "Steps Into the Kingdom". We'd love to have you help build our Forum into a valuable Conversation amongst many in the Body of Christ today! es

P.P.S. Also, if you check out my Shelfari bookshelves to the right on this blog, you can find and click on a tremendously useful book called, Dialogue With Jesus, by Mark Virkler. It's brought thousands of Believers from more "abstract" and "non-personal" relationships with God into relationships that are deep, powerful, life-transforming and filled with peace and joy. His technique is simple and safe -- you'll "open yourself" to God's "Voice" in ways which will bring clarity and illumination to the path He walks alongside with you more than you've ever experienced before. It's the most precious experience, knowing Jesus intimately and accurately. If you're hungry for more of Him, click on the picture of the book and it'll tell you more. es

When God Submits to Man

2008-07-03T16:25:00.001-07:00

Can't help it. When I read The Shack, I can only read a page or three before I have to stop and make some notes. And here's one of those notes:

In the chapter, "Wade Across the Lake", Jesus points out that in a relationship of love, no one dominates another. Even God refuses to dominate any human being -- that's the nature of human free will.

But then the author takes it a step further than I've considered before. He talks about how God, in fact, "submits" to us.

Instantly my thoughts flew to the Garden and I saw it in a new way. And to Ephesians 5 in which is defined the nature of love relationships in the Body of Christ as "mutually submitted, one to another".

Think about Adam in the Garden. When Adam chose to sin, did God contradict that choice? Not at all. Did God force Adam to do right? No, not at all. God allowed Adam to make his choice, hellish as it turned out to be, and by so doing He honored Adam's place to exercise his will, even against God's desire (and command.)

In a very real sense, God submitted to Adam. God allowed him to make that choice.

And God lets us receive the consequences, much as it wounds Him, because He's still submitted to humankind. Humankind may have blown it terribly, but having put the Creation into our hands and made it our responsibility, God has submitted to how we have chosen to exercise that responsibility (even to our placing it into the hands of Satan.)

And if God is so determined to honor our freedom as to even submit to our choices, how much more should we honor one another -- sometimes even in the face of very, wrong choices. On more than one occasion, I've had people who I've "poimened" get very mad at me because in the moment of their crisis, I didn't order them to do the "right thing". One man, for example, told me in a totally determined manner that he was finished with his marriage, that he was leaving his wife and would never come back. (It was a "done deal".) This man considered himself an "elder" over our local congregation and knew full well what the Bible taught about divorce. So as he sat beside me explaining his plans, I said, "You know that's not going to do any good, trying to solve it that way." And he cried out that he didn't care -- "It's over!" And so I said, "Well -- O.K. If that's what you're going to do, then know that I'm still available to you as you as a friend."

Later, after he'd figured out how to resolve things with his wife and wound up staying with her, he came back to clarify that I was "not his pastor anymore" because in his time of crisis, I didn't command him or order him to do what was "right". I agreed that I wasn't his "pastor anymore" (not that I had been before, anyway.) I also let him know that I will never try to sustain a relationship with a person in which they expect me to order them to do what is right -- thereby taking from them their freedom to make whatever choice (good OR bad) they want.

We don't exercise "authority" in the Body of Christ "like the kings of the nations lord it over [the pagans], and those exercising authority over them are called 'benefactors'. But you be not so..." [Lk 22.25f] We don't exercise control on any level in the Body of Christ for we are submitted one to another in truth and not pretense, honoring one another even as God honors us.

Closing remark: There are only a few, major obstacles to the manifestation of the Body of Christ, and one of them is religious control. Whereas Ephesians 4 describes the building up of the Body of Christ into His full stature, this "building up" cannot happen until the saints actually relate together in humility, honor and love.

But here's the main point:

As long as "christians" relate towards one another with suspicion, arrogance, separatism and disdain, the Body of Christ will never be manifested. Never. (Do you understand? -- NEVER.)

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

P.S. You can respond to this post directly (use the little "comment" tag below) or you can come onto our KingdomScribes Forum and start up a conversation about this issue. It's located at www.KingdomScribes.net/phpBB3 es

P.P.S. If you want further information about The Shack, look to the right and you'll find it on my bookshelves!!! (Is that cool?) Just click on its image. es

Don't Take Your Finger Off the Pulse...

2008-06-23T10:55:00.001-07:00

Television 'Christianity" has never appealed to me and I've found few presentations through the years which truly impacted my spirit -- and much which grossly offended it. But just recently, Rory and Wendy (owners/managers of the international broadcasting network -- GodTV) sat down together to review the Lakeland revival and Todd Bentley's ministry over the last -- what? -- 70 days?

They showed a few clips from Lakeland -- excellent choices due to the credibility of the people confessing their healings publicly. Such testimonies cannot but be viewed with some level of skepticism since we know what human nature is like in its hunger for recognition, belonging, etc. which often causes people to "profess healings" only to be a part of what they're hungering for. Yet heaing testimonies such as these also have to be viewed in the Reality of Knowing the God Who Heals (Jehovah Rapha). To reject the possiblity that many of these people are being healed supernaturally flies in the Face of the very nature of our Father.

In this brief dialogue between Rory and Wendy on GodTV, both of them recognized that there have been some extreme behaviors and even some excesses in Todd's presentations during the Lakeland revivals. In fact, GodTV has apparently taken a substantial "hit" financially in response to their decision to feature these meetings on international TV. But they refuse to let this pressure (and that of accompanying, negative emails) remove their focus on God's Move in Florida.

In fact, Rory pointed out that he'd heard from missionaries in Nepal (whose country receives GodTV's signal) who while walking in the marketplaces, hear people talking about the outbreak of supernatural healing in Lakeland, Florida! This -- in a country officially set against the spread of Christianity, executing any Nepalese who become followers of Jesus! And emails of people claiming various healings from China, India, Pakistan, as well as the more typically "Christian" nations.

There's been a flood of negative critiques on the Web denouncing Todd's current ministry. Occasionally dipping into that "flood" to consider what someone claims to be a serious problem, I've come to a serious conclusion of my own. The Lakeland revival is having a purging effect on the Christians in the U.S. and around the world. It's highlighting the people who are more concerned about defending their "wineskins" then preparing for an unexpectedly New Wine.

When I read complaints from "Christian" magazine editors about why Lakeland is such a threat to the Church, what I really see are the personal biases and blindspots of the editor himself. When I read the criticism of a well-known "apostolic" conference speaker, I see the prejudices and darkened understanding of the speaker.

A simple example: People complain that Todd gets some of his direction for who God is currently healing from a angel named, "Emma". Personally, I love it when God uses someone powerfully who doesn't look and act like all the rest of the professional ministers I've known through the years. The idea of one of the world's currently foremost revivalists being short, bald and tattooed makes me think back to how religious people must have responded to that unknown crazy man who wandered in from the desert, preaching "Repent!" as he fed himself on locusts and honey, dressed crudely in the skin of a camel. Then again, centuries before that, I'm sure Elijah the Tishbite must have been a sight.

But back to Emma. Receiving direction from an angel as to where God's Spirit is focusing healing next in a meeting is not the same thing as receiving from an angel, a Gospel different from what Paul preached.

Excuse me. Aren't angels "ministering spirits, sent out to them who shall be heirs of salvation?" And of whom God says He's made his "angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." And if you've read the Scriptures, are you truly unaware of the bizarre history of how God has sent angels to minister to us, giving us leading, protection, spiritual sight (as in "Elisha! The hills are full of horses and chariots of fire round about us!")

If Todd were getting a new Gospel from the angel, Emma, I'd be concerned. But what concerns me more is that much of the so-called "church" has received a "gospel" different from that of Jesus. Unless Jesus were mistaken, the Good News of the Kingdom of God is "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give!"

The ones who have "received a Gospel different from that which I preached" are those whose "gospel" has become a system of carefully controlled, rational, logical, theological arguments, suppositions and theories, mixed with a collection of behavioral requirements, ("Don't smoke, don't chew, don't go with girls that do...") and a concatenation of ritualistic habits called, "This is how we do 'church'." Then these people have the audacity to call their religious formulas, the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

Hmmmm...

Back to Rory and Wendy and their dialogue over the Lakeland revivals and their continued support for what they see God doing through Todd...

Wendy said she'd been given a picture in the Spirit of a little baby in I.C. U. (Intensive Care Unit) with wires and monitors hooked to its tiny body. As she watched, the screen showing the baby's heartbeat showed tall spikes with every heartbeat -- the line darting up, then down, then up -- synchronized with its every beat.

Then God said to her, "This baby is the New Move of My Spirit I've brought through Lakeland, Florida." And He told Wendy, "Reach out, take its wrist and feel its pulse." She did so, and God finished with this command:

Don't take your finger off the pulse of the Lakeland revival...

My, my.

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

News From Lakeland Woe-Be-Gone...

2008-06-20T20:01:00.000-07:00

It's interesting to note that the group of people who complain about Todd (and his angels, tats, etc.) do NOT include people who have been healed. Some of those who have complained the loudest, haven't even watched one entire evening of Todd's ministry. To me, critiquing an event based on what others say and not first-hand info is -- well -- weak.

Shell and I have watched several evenings and some have seemed less "persuasive" than others. But in quite a few testimonies, the "credibility factor" is so high we can't help but trust the reality of the person's relief, if not their healing. And quite a few "healings" are totally believable. Of course, part of why I don't have trouble believing people can be healed is because I've personally witnessed supernatural, incontrovertible, "impossible" healings. (My wife, back in 1992, for example.)

But Todd's going to get some help from a new source. Apparently, three nationally respected ministers -- Che Ahn (Calif), John Arnott (Toronto) and Bill Johnson (Redding, Calif) -- are joining with Todd soon in a "commissioning service". This isn't an "ordination" since Todd is already an ordained minister, but these three ministers (representing the organization, Revival Alliance) are going to officially "commission" Todd as an evangelist and revivalist.

On Bill Johnson's blog, he responds to critics of his friendship with Todd by explaining that he and Todd have known each other personally for years. Bill's ministered and prayed together with him, received counsel and prophetic ministry from him -- in short, Bill says he knows Todd.

"And more importantly, he's my friend. More importantly, God calls him friend. And if you and I were ever friends on that level, and people hated you and turned against you, and started web pages to tear down your ministry, and criticized you to your friends, and wrote against you in Christian magazines and criticized you on the radio and wrote emails to other conference speakers and authors, I'd still be your friend."

If you'd like to carry on the "Lakeland" conversation any further with Shell and me, feel free to go on to our KingdomScribes Forum (newly created!) on the "Currents in the Church" sub-forum. (KingdomScribes.net/phpBB3)

Emil & Shell Swift

KingdomScribes.net

P.S. BTW -- That sub-forum's a good place to dialogue about Todd's "angels, tats, visions, etc." as well! es

Lakeland Reflections

2008-06-06T18:49:00.001-07:00

"BAM!!!"

And someone falls to the stage floor. It's not Emeril Live -- it's Todd Bentley and the Lakeland revival (or restoration or renewal or whatever you want to call it, it's loud and filled with energy.)

Since I live in California (about as far from Florida as you can get) I haven't raced out to see the healing meetings, but with GodTV live broadcasts and people writing reviews, critiques and opinions by the dozens, I feel like I've gotten a pretty good dose of what's going on.

In the last six years, I've sat listening to Todd Bentley preach in person two or three times, I've listened to a dozen or more teaching on TV or CDs, and I've watched quite a few days of the current Lakeland meetings.

So I don't feel I have to rely on people's second-hand opinions about Todd's teachings. I've already gotten a pretty wide slice of what he has to say over the last few years. When I read a blog or an article complaining that Todd's teaching is heresy or unbiblical, I pay attention in hopes that someone is going to show me something I've missed. Hey -- I don't want to be misled just because I missed some awful teaching Todd gave somewhere!

But after considering each complaint I've found so far, I find none of them has any real substance. Though there are those who complain about Todd's tattoos, one of the most common complaints is that what Todd preaches is "not biblical", or (as one person neatly wrote) Todd's teachings "depart from historical Biblical Christianity's stances..."

This last complaint is rich, really rich. Saying that Todd's teachings "depart" from some "historical Biblical Christian stance..." sounds like Todd is teaching something unbiblical. In fact, all this person is saying is... well, nothing. There is no such thing as a "Biblical Christian stance" on anything. Historically, every Bible teacher has taken their own stance on the Bible. And all of them have disagreed to a greater or lesser degree with all of them.

This accusation (that Todd's teachings "depart from historical Biblical Christianity's stance") is dishonest because it implies that his teachings are "unbiblical", but no evidence is given showing a single teaching from Todd that is clearly unbiblical.

The only evidence given is that Todd's teachings don't agree with this man's theology.

That's not the same thing as heresy!

The areas in question more often than not are Todd's references to angels, visits to Heaven, conversations with saints in Heaven and so forth. Now -- you or I may choose to not believe Todd when he talks about seeing angels or visiting Heaven and talking with people there, but there's nothing unbiblical about a person having supernatural experiences such as these.

It would be different if Todd were teaching that to be saved, we need to have these supernatural experiences -- that would be teaching a "different gospel" than what Paul gave to us. But how could what Todd says be that different from what the apostle Paul taught, if Paul and the other, New Testament saints talked to angels, visited Heaven and saw things in the Spirit and not after the flesh?

As far as what Todd actually teaches, he's saying that the New Testament (indeed, the entire Bible for that matter) presents an accessibility to spiritual sight and experiences that surpasses what churches have typically taught for a long, long time. It's the unsurprising argument that too many Christians' "faith" is overly rational, intellectualized and divorced from the spiritual experiences of men and women throughout the New Testament.

Honestly, through the years I've heard Todd speak of visions, of angelic visitations, of information imparted supernaturally about people's sicknesses, etc., etc. -- and though these have often been quite strange, none of them have been without clear, biblical precedent.

And none of them have been contrary to clear, biblical teaching.

If you are one of the thousands worldwide who are paying attention to what's happening in Lakeland, FL, take the criticisms you read and hear with a grain of salt. When someone complains that "this teaching" or "that teaching" is "unbiblical", judge the criticism and consider whether that teaching disagrees with the Bible or disagrees with that person's, personal theology!

And when the criticisms go beyond theology into attacking the man himself ("his tattoos don't glorify God", "he spent some time in jail as a juvenile", "he honors Christian ministers of the past who were heretics", etc.) consider first how often what people swear is "true" are lies, and second how often we're told only enough of a truth to make someone look very bad, but were we to know the whole story, we often would not reach the same conclusions.

I'm sorry, but as you sort out what's happening in Lakeland, don't believe what anybody tells you (especially when they're "defending God" or "defending the faith"!) The truth is that there are people willing to deceive you on every hand -- and your only "protection" against being deceived is that the Holy Spirit dwells within you, protecting you from deception. (1 John 2.20-27) This is why John says that you don't need to have any man "teach you" -- not even about Lakeland, Todd, healing or heretics -- because the Presence of the Holy Spirit leads you into all Truth!

Now -- all this applies to you if you are one of the thousands worldwide who are paying attention to what's happening in Lakeland, FL. And if you aren't paying any attention to what is happening in Lakeland -- wake up.

Emil Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

P.S. By the way -- my wife Shell makes the point that if you're one of the people who just got healed there in Lakeland, you really don't care if Todd talks to angels or not! It's just like Jesus' healing of the paralyzed man by the Pool of Bethesda or the blind man who washed in the Pool of Siloam -- though the religious leaders accused Jesus of being a lawless sinner to both these newly healed people, all they cared about was that one could now walk and the other could now see! One of the things I appreciate about this current spate of healing miracles is that quite a few of them are confirmed by medical reports or credible testimony and are not able to be easily dismissed. es

It's the Truth Cause I Heard it on Fox

2008-01-12T16:16:00.003-08:00

Everybody should not believe what they hear on any news outlet since "news" is no longer an unbiased and balanced reporting of facts... "News" is entertainment. What drives and directs news content is ad sales. It's simple. If there are two news programs, and one is careful, balanced and accurate, but the other is electrifying, scandalous and titillating, the second is going to attract the greater number of people and therefore the greater amount of advertising money. The second is going to survive and flourish whereas the first is going to fade into obscurity.

Next, think of the person you've heard in the past who says, "I'm ashamed of myself. As a Christian, I should have more interest in 'what's happening in the world', but I just don't follow the news. I haven't got the slightest idea of what's going on."

Is this a spiritual problem? Certainly. But the problem isn't that the person isn't guilty of not watching the news. The problem is believing that the news media is accurately portraying what's going on in the world.

The reality is that -- if you closely follow what the news media puts out -- you will not know what's going on in the world.

In the Bible, there's a wonderful statement about a tribe, the "men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do..." This is like a trumpet call to the followers of Christ. We who are followers of the truth, have a passion to know the truth about the times in which we live. Today, we are the ones who must "understand the times in which we live and what the People of God should do".

So, we want to "know our times"... How do we accomplish this? Listen to the news media? If you do, you'll never know the truth of what is happening in "our times".

How do we "know our times"? Only by inclining our ear to the Voice of God.

Someone cries out, "But God hasn't said anything about the riots in Whatever-stan or the human rights violations in Wherever-odia! How will I know the truth about those riots or those violations without the news media?" And again it must be said, the news media is not putting out truth, but half-truths, quarter truths, eighth truths alongside of innuendo, rumor, insinuation and scandal. When a follower of Jesus Christ listens to a newscast, he or she can never confidently accept the so-called report as truth.

But when a follower of Jesus Christ listens to Him, he or she hears God's truthful evaluation of the times in which we live. Do you honestly believe that the word of the news media is more accurate than the Word from the Lord?

If we take these things to heart, what does it look like? Do we turn off the TV news and toss out our daily newspaper? Maybe, to some degree. But not entirely. Here's a picture: The news shows emaciated children in some third-world country, rib bones sticking out, scars and boils on their bodies and stomachs swollen in hunger. You mute the "news report" and incline your ear to God. You lay it out there and say, "Father -- this hurts to see these children... but I don't know the truth about this situation. Sure, I can donate money to Such-and-Such Relief Organization, but will my dollar ever reach the children I've just seen? What is the truth of my times and what I should do..."

And God says something totally unexpected. He says, "No -- don't give a donation to the group just shown on TV, but contact so-and-so and give $150 today." Or God says, No- your money is not needed, but your prayers will help defeat the enemy's strategies in that land of starving children." Or He says, "Call upon Heaven for Justice! Cry out shamelessly for Justice to be done in that land and in those children's' lives! Pray for the hold Satan has on the political power of that nation to be broken and My Life, Love and Power to be released like a River across that land!"

Those followers of Jesus who know not to trust the news media, who know not to be led by the nose by news, become a people who know their times and what they should do, because they get there direction straight from the Throne of God.

Do you say, "Let me call Pastor, and see if he can tell me what to do"? Do you say, "Let me see if Such-and-Such Ministry has put out a White Paper on this terrible problem telling me what to do?" No. To become like the "sons of Issachar", it is you who must daily approach God and say, "Help me, Father, to understand the Truth of my times and what I should do."

Our Heavenly Father has not given us full access to His Person and Presence only so that we can go to another source for Truth. We are the people who "understand our times" because we know our God. As it says in Daniel 11.32: "The people who know their God will display strength and take action." (NASB)

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

End of the World Scenarios?

2008-01-08T16:38:00.001-08:00

We haven't put out anything on the KingdomScribes blog this last year because we've just been letting things develop in relationship to the KingdomScribes' vision. This last year of virtual silence has seen a great deal of growth in our lives and clarity from the Lord.

Having been hidden away "in the cleft of the Rock" for such a long time here in northern California, the Lord is moving Michele and me into a new field of "practical ministry". There are quite a few people near us -- about an hour away on the Pacific coast -- who are spiritually restless. They're ready to go into new places in God's "preparation of the Bride", but are unclear just what that looks like.

Which is O.K. We're unclear as well, but quite willing to move out of familiar church forms and find forms more suitable to the Move of God's Spirit today. In a sense, I personally feel like a part of me that's never yet been fulfilled is close to its fulfillment.

Just a few days ago I shared with Michele how all my life I'd loved sci-fi stories about the "end of the world". She looked at me suspiciously. Stories of the decimation of humankind due to a world-wide atomic bomb or a meteor crashing into the ocean or a Ebola virus killing 99% of the population hardly seemed very "christian" of me.

Agreeing with her (but still enamored of these stories) I asked the Lord why I have such twisted tastes in literature -- and He said it's because He created me this way. "It's Your fault?" I asked, and He told me it's the natural outgrowth of a character trait He designed in me -- He gave me a fondness for scenarios in which the entire infrastructure is destroyed, leaving people free to develop something new.

Like -- what?

Let's consider "infrastructure" first. "Infrastructure" is the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities needed for the continuation of a society or activity. Like buildings, roads, power plants, fuel, communications, etc. When the Ebola virus is released, for example, every one needed to drive buses, generate electricity, repair roads, restock groceries -- they're all gone. The infrastructure needed to keep society maintained is gone. Communities have shut down, streets are empty, cars are abandoned and nobody's "home" because society's "infrastructure" has been destroyed.

Instantly, I understood His point -- especially how it relates to the Kingdom.

In order to build the Church according to new patterns, a person has to be willing to release the old, religious infrastructure -- the rituals, the programs, the familiar, friendly, previously successful patterns of what "doing church" means. Understand me -- not destroy those patterns, but be willing to release whatever Jesus says is no longer part of the Church He's building.

There is in me a joyous expectation that in releasing the traditions of men, we can enter into the Living Church that Jesus Builds -- the Church which prevails over the gates of Hell itself.

It's vital to be clear on this: There is no need to tear down existing, religious structures. To "violently press into the Kingdom of God" does not require the "tearing down" of old line churches, denominations, etc. In fact, we're certain that any such focus is a distraction from receiving the New Wine of Jesus into New Wineskins. As we've said often, our focus is simple: we're going into new places in the Kingdom, places where Jesus leads and we follow. Basically, in respect to brethren who have no interest in spiritually traveling with us, we bless them and go our way.

In fact, our primary responsibility to older church forms and even the religious tradition of our Christian brothers and sisters is honor -- honor those who have gone before, and honor the function they still have in the Church of Jesus Christ. But our primary responsibility to God is to let Him hold the map, and walk into unknown places, guided by the safety of our hands in the Father's Hand.

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

P.S. BTW -- many of these issues are dealt with excellently in George Barna's book, Revolution. For more information on this book, please click on its image in my Shelfari bookshelf up toward the top of this blog. es

P.P.S. If you'd like to join an ongoing Conversation about these issues (and other contemporary concerns in the Church), feel free to go to our KingdomScribes Forum, especially to the "Currents in the Church" sub-forum, and share your thoughts or questions. es

The Lament of the Bride...

2006-09-21T01:22:00.002-07:00

Hello, All!

We wanted to tell you about a free e-book we're making available. It's entitled, Many Are Sick and Some Have Died: The Little Book of Christian Harmony. It confronts the wholesale refusal by Christians everywhere to Love one another as Christ Loves us. Awhile back, an old woman from Sacramento traveled north into our mountains -- not knowing us, she came to our congregation, drawn by the Lord, and laying hands on this Little Book, prophesied, "This book will bring great lamentation to churches across this land!"

Lamentation? Is this a Good Thing, bringing Lamentation to many churches?

Let me describe this Coming Lament - it's the Lament of the Bride found in the Song of Songs, 6.2-8.

In these verses, the Bride longs for Her Beloved, but has fallen into a profound slumber. She has showered and removed Her undergarment to lie warmly in her bed -- but then She hears Her Lover at the door of Her bedchamber -- He tries to reach the latch to open the door and enter the room of His Beloved?but He cannot. But does the Bride rouse Herself from Her sleep, rush and unlatch the door? Not at all! She has fallen into a slumber and, though stirred, finds the thought of putting Her robe on overwhelming and getting her newly washed feet dirty on the floor distasteful... So She delays, finally arises only to discover Her Beloved has gone! Sickened for the Love that She's lost, She rushes out into the streets to find Him -- but all She finds is abuse at the hands of the city watchmen who beat Her viciously, bruising Her tender flesh and tearing away her veil to leave her wretched and dishonored.

All She has is sadness and lamentation?

The Song of Songs portrays to us the Great Love of Jesus Christ for His Bride, the Church -- His Love for us! But amidst romantic passages about the fragrance of God's Spirit sweeping through the Secret Garden of our Romance with the King, there comes this dark passage of Love Lost and the bloodying of the Bride? Why? Why does this dark night have to come into Our Heavenly Romance?

It comes because in Her sleep -- Her slothful and numbing sleep -- the Bride rejected Jesus' Love. She lay in bed, having laid aside Her robe of righteousness and yet remaining self-satisfied that at least her feet were clean...

In order to open the door, She had to don the Robe of His Righteousness and "dirty her feet" -- but instead, the Bride rejected His Love.

Jesus says, in John 15, that we are to "abide" in His Love, even as He abides in His Father's Love. Does this mean we are to somehow "keep" Him "loving us" and thus "abide" in His Love?

Not at all -- there's nothing that can separate us from the Love of God. But we can separate ourselves from the Love of Jesus. We can refuse to allow His Love to enter into the bedchamber of our spiritual lethargy.

What is this "refusal" to allow the Love of Jesus to enter into our bedchamber? Jesus tells us exactly what "receiving His Love" means. He says we are to "abide in His Love" (John 15.10) and that therefore we are "to love one another" (John 15. 12, 17)

To "abide" in Jesus' Love is to "love the brethren".

To "abide" in Jesus' Love is to "love the brethren"!

But the Visible Church does not "love the brethren". Instead, it is filled with schism, accusation, betrayal between christians, backstabbing, disdain and mockery of other brethren, religious pride and dishonor of others and arrogant schisms amongst God's children into congregations, denominations, theologies and litergies. The Children of God -- being existentially united and one in Christ are not manifesting that oneness (which is, in fact, the same Oneness of Jesus and His Father -- John 17).

Are the Watchmen in The Song a blessing to the city? Not at all. Where the spiritual "watchmen" of the Kingdom of God should be ministering to the Bride in Her search for Her Beloved, they instead attack Her? They attack the Body, arrogantly claiming their "wounding of the Bride" somehow helps Her become more "holy" or ensures that Her "doctrine" is more "correct". Where a minister in the Body urges schism in the Body instead of Oneness, where a pastor mocks the Christians and congregations in his area or feels he must "compete" against them, where "christians" condemn "christians" and stand in judgment against them -- here, the Bride, desperately sick for the unifying Love she's unwisely rejected, is mauled by malice, bruised by blame, destroyed by division and dishonored by dissection.

In the Song of Songs, the Bride numbly lays in a self-satisfied sleep, fantasizing of Her Beloved but in fact refusing entry to His Love.

Here's this Little Book's message in a nut-shell:

The Church, the Body of Christ, has rejected Jesus' Love...

...the very Love into which He calls us (as in Eph. 4.1-2.) Paul commands us to...

Live and act as is appropriate

to those who have received the Call

that you have received...

That with all humility and unselfishness, and with patience, that we

Bear with one another lovingly, and (in the uniting bond of peace)

Make every effort to maintain the unity given by the Spirit"?

Paul warned the Corinthians that because they had also kept the Door closed on the Love of Jesus Christ and the Oneness of His Body, many of them were sick, and weak, and some even had died. (1 Cor 11.30)

In the Song of Songs, the Bride weeps in deep Lament for Her Beloved, sickened at having turned away His Love? As the Bride of Christ begins to discern the Love she's groggily rejected and the Oneness She's dishonored, She Laments for the Love of Jesus even as She begins to make every effort to manifest His Love in the Oneness of all who call upon the Lord Jesus and are One with Him.

The Lament of the Bride, finally becomes the Song of All Songs.

And for this purpose, this Little Book has been written.

Download this e-book in pdf format for free here:

Download Many Are Sick and Some Have Died

Feel free to share Many Are Sick and Some Have Died with others as you sense the Spirit's leading. One pastor in London asked permission to print it out, photocopy it and share it with his regional ministerial association. He mailed me a copy when he did so.

Bless you all!

Emil & Shell Swift
KingdomScribes.net

P.S. We're developing a KingdomScribes Bible Study Forum. It's main focus will be to equip disciples of the Kingdom of Heaven in accurately examining current, revelatory teachings in the Body of Christ as well as interpreting a variety of Biblical passages. Also, contemporary issues in the Church today may be discussed in the "Currents in the Church" sub-forum. es

For You iPoders Out There...

2006-03-11T19:12:00.000-08:00

Just a short note on a recent feature implemented here at KingdomScribes... our teachings are now being made available via podcasts! The teachings available from Em&M Ministries are valuable for pressing into the New Things of God -- the invasion of His Kingdom into the kingdoms of this earth, the explosive power in our lives of joining the Word and the Spirit into one, the Pouring of New Wine into New Wineskins, and the Preparation of the Bride for Christ!

There are a couple of ways to access these teachings:

If you are an iPoder and have access the iTunes music store, look on the upper right
corner of the iTunes screen for a text box entitled, "Search Music
Store". Type in, "KingdomScribes" and it'll bring up "Bible Truths for KingdomScribes" with a tiny arrow after the title. Click that arrow and it'll bring up a complete list of current podcasts. Click the "Subscribe" button to be automatically kept up to date with new podcasts.

The original two podcasts include the seminal teaching for the Rightly Dividing the Word Tutuorial called "Surfing the Prophetic Voice of God". The other, "When Your Personal Prophecies are Tested", is a teaching designed to help you guard the prophetic Words of the Lord you've received from being derailed or stolen away before their fulfillment in your life. The rest of the podcasts deal with other issues important to any "scribe" today who is being "discipled by the Kingdom of Heaven"!

Now, if you DON'T use an iPod you can still listen to the podcasts, as long as you have a high speed connection (such as DSL, cable, etc.)

Click here for access and scroll down to the bottom of the page:

Enjoy!

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

The Well-Known Editor Has Gone Too Far This Time...

2006-01-18T17:34:00.001-08:00

The internet is a wonderful resource -- but dangerous at the same time. On the Web, everybody has a voice, and many times the voices we hear are skewed or outright deceptive. It's our responsibility to judge what information we pull from the Web -- never accept anything at face value.

Recently, someone sent to me a copy of an OpEd piece by Charisma editor, J. Lee Grady. This piece comes at an opportune time -- I was just preparing a blog on Barna's book, Revolution, and felt astonished when Grady's hatchet-job showed up.

I read what Grady wrote and wondered (as I often do) how people who misrepresent the thoughts of others ever get into positions of influence. It reminds me of a quip by Karl Barth (author of the massive Church Dogmatics) who, when asked to respond to a reviewer's criticisms, responded, "I'd feel much different about it if they'd actually read what I write before they comment on it." To my understanding, in Grady's bash, he says nothing that shows me he first, respectfully grasped what Barna was saying before wading in to "warn" Charisma's subscribers of Barna's "Serious Proposal".

(For the rest of this blog, I'll put quotes from Grady's OpEd article into inset paragraphs with this font.)

"GEORGE BARNA'S DANGEROUS PROPOSAL:
The well-known Christian researcher has gone too far this time: He's advocating the demise of the local church."

I've got the book right here. Grady claims some things about Barna's book that are either untrue or "spun". I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, but I'll pull a few quotes out of the book to show that Grady has not fairly represented Barna's message.

What is it, according to the polls he'd been taking for the last, several years, that Barna is saying "revolutionary Christians" are rejecting? On p.13 Barna says that these spiritual revolutionaries,

"have no use for churches that play religious games, whether those games are worship services that drone on without the presence of God or ministry programs that bear no spiritual fruit. Revolutionaries eschew ministries that compromise or soft sell our sinful natures [in order] to expand organizational turf. They refuse to follow people in ministry leadership positions who cast a personal vision rather than God's. Who seek popularity rather than the proclamation of truth in their public statements, or who are more concerned about their own legacy than that of Jesus Christ."

Any problem with that perspective? You might look at it and say, "But when he says this, maybe he means something else..." and I say, read what he actually says and tell me you don't feel the same passion for spiritual reality that Barna affirms.

On p. 14 Barna continues:

"Many Revolutionaries have been active in good churches that have biblical preaching, people coming to Christ and being baptized, a full roster of interesting classes and programs, and a congregation packed with nice people. There's nothing overtly wrong with anything taking place at such churches. But Revolutionaries innately realize that it is just not enough to go with the flow...They are seeking a faith experience that is more robust and awe inspiring, a spiritual journey that prioritizes transformation at every turn, something worthy of the Creator whom their faith reflects. They are seeking the spark provided by a commitment to a true revolution in thinking, behavior and experience, where settling for what is merely good and above average is defeat. Revolutionaries zealously pursue an intimate relationship with God, which Jesus Christ promised we could have through Him."

This is certainly what I've been telling our people! We're not called to "go along just to get along" but to be world-changers!

"Pollster George Barna has provided a valuable service to leaders in business, politics and ministry by studying data and identifying trends. As a social analyst, he warned us in his 1990 book, The Frog in the Kettle, that evangelical values have not been embraced inside our churches.

"But Barna has crossed a line with his new book, Revolution (Barna Books, a division of Tyndale House, $17.99). The tempered sociologist has now become something of a mad scientist. By cooking the numbers, reinterpreting the data and injecting his own biases into this odd experiment, he has created a Frankenstein that is now on the loose.

"We should all be concerned about this monster.

"Barna's theory is that large numbers of American Christians are disillusioned with the church and have quit the Sunday morning routine. He applauds this trend, and has labeled these church dropouts "revolutionaries" who--in his opinion--have more spiritual creativity and passion than stick-in-the-mud traditionalists.

"He also believes that those who have left the mainstream church scene will overhaul modern Christianity, describing their mission as 'a daring redefinition of the church as we know it.'"

Barna claims that people all over America are leaving "mainstream churches" which have rejected the call to a radical commitment to Jesus Christ. But they're leaving "mainstream churches" in order to press into a radical, "Kingdom" lifestyle. He's saying that people all over are hungry for Kingdom reality.

This is a problem?

Let me toss this in here: throughout the book, Barna treats the local congregation as a viable and continuing expression of the Church. He doesn't predict its demise -- he IS predicting the demise of the "mainstream" church which has abdicated its commitment to living a revolutionary lifestyle in this world. And what is Bill Johnson [When Heaven Invades, Earth] advocating? Bill's leading everyone who'll lend him an ear to abdicate traditional, shallow "christian" lives in order to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven wherever we put our feet. This is the "revolution" that Barna is reporting on. What he's finding in his polls, though, isn't the mature, spiritual vision that Bill's proclaiming, but Barna's saying that people all over America are walking out of "mainstream churches" in search of something worth living for and dying for.

Is this a shocking idea -- that "mainstream churches" all over America are failing to lead people into the Kingdom invasion?

Consider Barna's list of the "Revolutionary's" seven passions (pp. 22ff) -- The Revolutionary...

- is passionate about intimacy in worship:
- is passionate about inviting those who do not yet know God into the same miraculous and intimate relationship we have:
- is passionate about deliberately, intentionally growing spiritually (never satisfied with what they know of God but wanting more...):
- is passionate to serve others, to put the interests of others above their own;
- is passionate to use all their personal resources as godly stewards to invest in the
Kingdom of God;
- is passionate to form knitted relationships, providing "not only encouragement but also loving accountability for spiritual integrity."
- is passionate to model Spirit-led lifestyles in their own homes, making even their homes (or especially their homes) a sanctuary for God.

Most ministers we connect with share these "passions" along with Barna. We might put other "passions" on our own lists -- but these seven are the ones Barna says he's culled from thousands of polls. Barna is saying that people all over the nation are leaving "mainstream mediocrity" in a passionate search for spiritual reality not offered in traditional "wineskin" churches.

Personally -- I agree.

"He offers a gloomy assessment of the future of the American religious scene, claiming that by the year 2025 (1) the number of churches in this country will dramatically decline; (2) church attendance will drop while at the same time the 'revolutionaries' will be devoting their time to other 'spiritual events'; (3) donations to churches will drop; and (4) fewer clergy will receive a livable salary while denominations are forced to make huge cutbacks.

"Barna seems to welcome this scenario, and he makes disaffected Christians out to be the heroes in his bizarre sociological model. They are tired of tithing, tired of boring sermons, tired of the religious routine. So, in their revolutionary zeal--with Barna as their mentor--they buck the system and start meeting together in glorious spontaneity at coffee bars and homes.

"Says Barna: 'The Bible neither describes nor promotes the local church as we know it today.'"

Let's remove the "spin": Barna is saying that what people typically consider "church" isn't at all what Acts shows that the church really is. And I'm sure you've preached that sermon before!

"If you still go to church, Barna makes you to feel like a weirdo..."

Listen -- I've read Barna's book, and nothing he said made me feel like a "weirdo" .

"...We are behind the times. According to Barna's research, the really relevant Christians who care about Jesus and love people will say adios to their pastors and write Ichabod on the doors of ecclesiastical buildings."

Not only does Barna not say this, nowhere in the book does he demonstrate the attitude that Grady accuses him of having.

"He envisions a 'spiritual awakening' in which people are drawn away from the church, not drawn toward it."

Specifically -- drawn away from the "old wineskins" of traditional, religious organizations which have substituted human agendas for God's agenda -- into a spiritual awakening in which every formal expression of the true Church will be greater and broader than what the traditional church form allows.

And Barna isn't advocating getting rid of local churches (not at all!) He's not saying that people must participate in "para-church" ministries (though he says that for many people, para-church ministries, short-term missions, etc. are the deepest and most viable expressions of a committed and revolutionary lifestyle.) Barna is reporting that traditional church forms are failing to provide the revolutionary lifestyle into which Jesus is calling His followers.

??? This is a problem???

"Barna even provides a creed we can recite at the end of the book, which includes this statement: 'I am not called to attend or join a church. I am called to be the Church.'"

Barna says, "I am not called to attend or join a church. I am called to be the Church." In the beginning of the book, Barna makes a very, clear point about "church" and "Church". One is small "c" and the other is big "C". He uses "church" to refer to "the congregation-based faith experience, which involves a formal structure, a hierarchy of leadership, and a specific group of believers. The term Church, on the other hand, refers to all believers in Jesus Christ, comprising the population of heaven-bound individuals who are connected by their faith in Jesus Christ regardless of their local church connections or involvement." (p.x)

In the context of Barna's book as a whole, his statement that we aren't called to "attend" a "church" but to "be the Church" is simply drawing the distinction between what is typically a human organization vs. a spiritual identity; we go to a church but we are the Church. He's not putting down local congregations -- he's only emphasizing that when the old wineskin is empty, spiritually serious people go looking for Reality.

Furthermore, Barna says, (p.38), "The Revolution is not about eliminating, dismissing, or disparaging the local church. It is about building relationships, commitment, process, and tools that enable us to be the God-lovers we were intended to be from the beginning of creation...[The Revolution] is not about church. It's about the Church -- that is, the people who actively participate in the intentional advancement of God's Kingdom in partnership with the Holy Spirit and other believers."

In the chapter entitled, "A New Way of Doing Church", (pp.61ff), Barna says, "For some Revolutionaries, their congregational experience is the linchpin of their faith journey. For many others, a local church plays a minor role in their journey...Yet a majority of Revolutionaries are involved in some form of ?church'."

"In case you are wondering how Barna handles Hebrews 10:25 ('Let us not neglect our meeting together'), he conveniently dismisses this apostolic directive by saying that such gatherings during the first century were spontaneous and had no resemblance to modern worship services."

I agree with Grady's comment about this particular Scripture. In fact, after reading the book, I picked this particular part out and told Michele that Barna's ecclesiology lacks integrity on this issue -- in one place in the book he's calling for committed local relationships for encouragement and accountability, and in another he's dissing the regular assembly of Believers as Heb 10 requires.

But consider this: have you ever agreed completely with someone preaching or proclaiming revolutionary teachings? Barna's attempting to help blast Christians out of a complacent rejection of the coming Kingdom of God based on defending traditions of men. So he gets a little off balance at some points? That's fine. When we hear or read anyone, it's up to us to "judge the word".

And the gist of Barna says is great. And what isn't great is easily balanced.

"Says Barna: 'Such interactions [as described in Hebrews 10:25] could be in a worship service or at Starbucks; it might be satisfied through a Sunday school class or at a dinner in a fellow believer's home.' In other words, church is up for grabs. Define it how you wish, as long as you don't define it the traditional way."

Actually, if you look at Heb 10, there's nothing in it that says the "assembly" is from 10 AM to 12 noon, composed of opening hymns, announcements, worship and a sermon. There's nothing in Heb 10 that says the "assembly" can't be at Starbucks or down at the park or over at the Wagner's house. Barna isn't dissing "the traditional ways" -- he's just saying don't limit it to only traditional formats.

??? Problem with that???

"Barna makes a few solid points, particularly when he emphasizes the need for all Christians--not just clergy--to actively engage in ministry. And his concerns about dry, anemic formalism in some churches are appropriate.
But what Barna wants to do is reinvent the church without its biblical structure and New Testament order--and without the necessary people who are anointed and appointed by God to lead it. To follow this defective thesis to its logical conclusion..."

When an apologist (like Grady) says, "To follow this to its logical conclusion..." he's really saying, "If we exaggerate Barna's ideas and take them to extremes that Barna has not taken them..." Grady's speculations here are absolutely not supportable by any of Barna's words.

"...would require us to fire all pastors, close all seminaries and Bible colleges, padlock our sanctuaries and send everybody home to be discipled by somebody on the Internet or at a "spontaneous" worship concert. (After all, who needs buildings? Megachurches are so '90s.)

"Barna is also surprisingly absorbed with American culture and seems out of touch with global spiritual trends. As a result his book has relatively no application in developing nations where churches today are growing faster than ever. I can't imagine telling an Indian, Nigerian or Chinese church planter these principles. The vibrant new churches in those countries, in fact, are much better biblical models of what God wants to do in the United States than anything Barna has suggested here."

Barna is NOT trying to lay out a model for a new church -- he IS saying that the traditional churches in America are going through a radical transformation and the polls indicate it's happening and it's happening NOW. His point isn't, "Let me tell you how to DO church..." His point is, the Revolution's happening, the polls show it's a real transition in how huge numbers of people "do church" -- and "the more you can anticipate some of the transitions resulting from these trends, the greater will be your ability to help shape the world in ways that are likely to honor God and advance your spiritual maturity." (p.48)

"The message of Revolution is not for Christians in the Third World, and it is not for us. With all respect to Barna, who has helped us in the past with his facts and observations, this flawed proposal needs to be recalled before it causes some serious damage."

Final comment: Many of Grady's remarks are couched in a mocking tone. "Mad scientist...cooking the numbers...he's created a Frankenstein...now on the loose...we should be concerned about this monster...etc." This cynical tone is a rhetorical tool that tries to move with innuendo and insinuation instead of wisdom and revelation.

Emil & Shell Swift
KingdomScribes.net

P.S. For those of you interested in finding out more about Revolution, by George Barna, please go to my Shelfari bookshelves towards the top of this blog, and click on the image of the book. (How cool!)

P.P.S. Also, if you want to further discuss this post, or any of our posts, please join or on-going Conversation about "Currents in the Church" in the KingdomScribes Forum at KingdomScribes.net/phpBB3

A Trail of Tears... But Joy Comes in the Morning!

2005-12-10T22:07:00.000-08:00

CLF Many people wonder about the congregation we pastor. Here's a short summary of who we are and what motivates us to press on!

I've pastored a congregation in a small, mountain community for 23+ years, starting back in 1982. Our community has about 1,700 people, and we've pastored longer than any of the other, local pastors.

We have probably the smallest of the small fellowships in our region. And, IMHO, we have the best!

First, let me explain the concept of topos as applied to local congregations. Then, we'll talk about the topos of our local congregation, CLF.

In Rev. 2 we read the following, and especially note the emboldened words:

1 "To the messenger of the church in Ephesus, write: The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand, the one who walks among the seven gold lamp stands, says:
2 I know what you have done--how hard you have worked and how you have endured. I also know that you cannot tolerate wicked people. You have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not apostles. You have discovered that they are liars.
3 You have endured, suffered trouble because of my name, and have not grown weary.
4 However, I have this against you: The love you had at first is gone.
5 Remember how far you have fallen. Return to me and change the way you think and act, and do what you did at first. I will come to you and take your lamp stand from its place if you don?t change.
6 But you have this in your favor--you hate what the Nicolaitans are doing. I also hate what they?re doing.
7 "Let the person who has ears listen to what the Spirit says to the churches. I will give the privilege of eating from the tree of life, which stands in the paradise of God, to everyone who wins the victory. (GWV)

The word "place" ("take your lamp stand from its place") in verse 5 is the Greek word topos. In Strong's, topos is defined, "the condition or station held by one in any company or assembly; opportunity, power, occasion for acting."

These terms, "opportunity, power, occasion for acting" are really important. Other sources relate places where topos is used in a military sense as a "strategic position". In other words, you might use topos to describe the strategic placement of soldiers on a battlefield, such as fighting from a mountain top instead of from an exposed place in a valley. The position which is strategically best would be called topos.

It's also used in Eph 4.27, "Neither give place to the devil." Understanding what topos means makes this warning much more powerful. We could paraphrase verse 27 as, "Don't give the devil a strategic position in your life from which to attack you." A position of "power".

Now -- back to Rev 2.5:

"I will come to you and take your lamp stand from its place if you don?t change."

Here's a warning to the Church at Ephesus -- "Repent, or I'll remove your Lampstand from its topos"...its place of strategic opportunity.

The primary interpretation of this verse deals with the repentance of the Church. But a valid application can be drawn from the idea represented here that a local congregation has been given a topos, a position of strategic opportunity.

In fact, if you look in any city or region at the variety of godly fellowships scattered about, it's not at all hard to appreciate the existence and ministry of every one. Few congregations (and every cult) believe that they and they alone are the "only true church" in an area. Most Christians can agree that in fact, every congregation in particular is good at some aspect of ministry in a community.

For example: One might be very good at ministering to the public welfare through benevolence. Surely this is a part of the Good News of Jesus Christ (unless you think giving a cup of cold water is somehow NOT part of Jesus' concern...re: Mt 25.35!)

Another might be very evangelistic, winning the lost. Another might minister to those whose taste in worship is traditional (hymns, 20 minute sermons, etc.) and yet another raises the roof in youth-oriented ministry that blows right past 12 noon with no one even noticing.

The point is, unless a congregation has so blown it (like Ephesus) that God's pulled its candle out, then each fellowship has a topos, a strategic position, given to it by God that no other church in an area has.

Specifically, CLF ("Christian Life Fellowship", our congregation) has a calling that God has given to us which no other congregation in our region shares. God is raising up in our congregation a people and a ministry, an identity and a destiny, that only this congregation has. We have a topos, a position of strategic opportunity.

And that topos, that strategic opportunity, is to be "early morning people, in the dawn of a new Day".

God is on the Move. He's the Cloud by Day and the Fire by Night. He's moving out of the old traditions of men, the old wineskins, and going into places that none of us know. We are a people who are content to leave old and familiar places to be led blindly into new places we cannot yet see. As in Isa 42.16, despite our "blindness", He'll bring us by a way that we don't know; He'll lead us in paths we've never known: He'll make darkness light before us and make crooked things straight. He'll do these things for us, and never forsake us.

A note on "church history" is in order here. Not "ancient" history, but a little history of our own congregation -- CLF. Back in January of 1990, God spoke through some of our people (we had people in those days!) He warned that though there had been great pruning and purging in the Church as a whole and that in our congregation, specifically, His purging wasn't over yet. By '95, we'd lost half our people and the Lord began speaking through me that our "church" was going to "die". By 2000, we had only a fraction of our congregation left, and by 2003 we had no one from the original congregation except one woman.

God dismantled the original CLF in order to bring about a totally new fellowship -- this one. We, so to speak, are on the ground floor of something not seen before in this world. God would not have taken us through the excruciating process of ending the old "church" form, if what He wants to do henceforth could have been done in the "old wineskin". It's parallel to a thought by the Apostle Paul in Galatians -- if salvation could have come in any way other than the death of Jesus, then His death would be unnecessary. Just so -- if the raising up of a new fellowship here in Willow Creek could have come in any way other than the death of the old, then all the suffering we experienced would have been unnecessary.

But God won't and He can't pour New Wine into old wineskins. It will not, it cannot happen.

Back in 1990, one of the women had a vision. She saw herself in this vision holding some beautiful piece of art in her hands -- like needlepoint on tapestry, but fantastically complex and very, very beautiful. She'd put hundreds of hours into crafting this piece of fabric. Suddenly, she realized that Jesus stood next to her. Holding up this precious work of time and love, she asked if He'd like to have it and He did. He took it from her hands and instantly, fiercely, threw it into a roaring fire in which it burned in a burst of flame. Shocked, she asked why He'd destroyed it, and He said, "That tapestry represented your "church life". It showed how you went to "church", how you prayed, how you loved your husband and family, how you cared for others, how you worshiped and how you did everything as a Christian. But your life is not supposed to be a product of your religious determination. I don't care so much what you can do for Me, but what I can do through you, if you let Me."

That woman, by the way, wasn't able to let go of her beautiful, Christian way of life. She left us as well as almost all the others. God stripped away from CLF all its ways of doing "church". For over a decade, God has continued stripping every aspect of "business as usual" away from this congregation -- and everyone who refused to let go of one precious "tradition" after another, found Him sweeping them out as well.

Another image helps explain the process. Again, in 1991, I said, "It's like there's a Greyhound bus, and God's the driver. It's waiting at the bus stop, He's gunned it a time or two and called out, 'Get on board!' to everyone standing outside. A few people have gotten on board, but many are still considering it outside. But the doors slam shut, the bus pulls out away from the curb and accelerates down the road into new places. If you want to go with Him into new places, leave the old behind and get on board."

One of the key characteristics of our ministry is that God is shaping us in such a way that we can relate to other local congregations without perpetuating traditional "church" forms. We aren't in an antagonistic relationship to other Believers in our community -- we value each congregation's topos. But God isn't pouring the New Wine of His Spirit into the old "church" forms. He's creating a "new wineskin". And though we don't know yet what that really looks like, we know He's shaping us into a "new Thing. And furthermore, we know that as CLF becomes something not seen before, it's going to bring some confusion and even likely some reproach from those keeping to traditional "church" form. We aren't preaching a different Gospel; we're not proclaiming a different Christ -- but as a congregation we're on the way to becoming something that eventually people may no longer even recognize as "church" at all.

As with Abraham and all spiritual pilgrims throughout all time -- we know that here, we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come!

Emil & Shell Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

P.S. As with any of these posts, if you'd like to discuss these ideas further, feel free to join our KingdomScribes Forum, especially the sub-forum entitled, "Currents in the Church". es

Is it OK to Use "Church" and "Revolution" in the Same Sentence?

2005-10-29T23:52:00.000-07:00

BRIEF UPDATE: We've been very tied up recently...Our most recent KingdomScribes Newsletter explained all (and if you didn't get it, click here to read it.)

Anyway -- we're off to visit the Apostolik Kirk churches in Denmark and a conference in Norway. Pray for us!

Meanwhile, on to our most recent blog!

In the '60s, various church people cried out, "God is dead!" People meant that "church" had become utterly meaningless to a normal person's daily life -- just as if "God" had "died". Lot of people still feel that way today.

In a way, this is kind of funny.

In the Bible, there's an Old Testament story about a troublesome prophet named "Elijah". He bucked the religious system of his day. The true ruler in Israel then was Queen Jezebel, and she worshipped Ba'el, a local fertility god.

Elijah challenged the prophets of Ba'el (450 of them) to a contest on top of a nearby mountain, Mt. Carmel. Sort of a "mano a mano" thing -- with one against hundreds.

Here's the contest: Each team had to build an altar and place wood and a sacrificial animal on top, offering it to their god. The winner would be the team whose god accepted the sacrifice by lighting the sacrifice on fire.

That's it. No cigarette lighters, no matches. No help at all -- just let their god of choice demonstrate his or her reality by setting the sacrifice on fire.

So the prophets of Ba'el went first. They built the altar, laid the wood, placed the animal sacrifice -- then began to dance and cry out for hours. Then they threw in a little of their own blood sacrifice as in their religious frenzy, they took knives and lancets, sliced their own bodies and let their blood flow freely as they danced in their trance.

Elijah, off to one side, wasn't very nice. He kept yelling things. He kept yelling things like, "Yell louder! Maybe your god's busy talking to someone! Maybe he's going to the bathroom! Maybe He's on vacation or taking a nap!"

(Don't believe me? Look it up... 1 Kings 18.27!)

Ba'el's prophets never quit until the time of the evening sacrifice. It's not as if Elijah didn't give them plenty of opportunity. Yet their god never lighted their sacrifice.

Then Elijah built his altar. Piling 12 stones together loosely, he laid the wood on top, slaughtered a steer for the sacrifice...

Then he went one further than the prophets of Ba'el. He dug a trench around the altar, calling for people from the crowd to pour four barrels of water all over the altar, soaking the wood, the sacrifice and running into the trench around the altar.

Then he told them to pour another four barrels of water on the altar, and then a third round of water. The altar was thoroughly soaked with water.

Then Elijah the prophet came near, and said, "Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that You are the only God in Israel, and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things because You told me to. Hear me, Oh Lord, hear me, so that this people will know that You are the Lord God, and that because of this sign, You have won back their hearts."

Verse 38 says, "Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the burnt sacrifice and the wood, and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water in the trench. And when all the people saw, they fell on their faces. And they said, 'Jehovah, He is the God! Jehovah, He is the God!'" And they then slaughtered all of Ba'el's prophets!

Let's make the connection now, between the first paragraph of this article and this Old Testament story.

Michele and I, we pastor a congregation locally. I do most of the teaching. My "handbook" for teaching is the Bible. If the Bible "says it", I say it too.

But that doesn't mean I have to like it. I preach what the Book says, not what makes me comfortable.

And the Book says that Jesus said that wherever any Believer of Jesus Christ "walks", "miraculous signs will accompany them (Mark 16.16): "They will use the power and authority of My Name to force demons out of people. They will speak 'languages' that are of a new kind and unprecedented...They will place their hands on the sick and cure them."

Paul, the Apostle, reproved the Believers at Corinth once. He said (in 1Cor 4.20): "The Kingdom of God is not just words, but power ."

Can I admit something to you? I'd be scared stiff if a modern "Elijah" walked up to me and said, "Is your god dead? You call on the name of your god, and I'll call on the name of my God -- and we'll see whose 'god' is real! That one, the One Who sends the fire -- He is God."

I'd be afraid to face "Elijah's" mockery as he says to me, "Can your god heal the sick? Raise the dead? Break demonic bondages? Maybe your god has gone to the bathroom or is still asleep!"

But, for Heaven's sake, why do I admit that there's something wrong with the "religion" I preach?

Number 1: I want to stir up a "holy dissatisfaction" with anything less than a church which is turning the world upside down through demonstrations of power and love.

Number 2: I'm not willing to play religion anymore. When we've prayed for people's healings, there have been very, very few miracles. Yet, according to the Bible, I can say that that's not what we should expect.

Besides, no one who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ now is going to believe by more religious prattle. But when the God of Elijah's "fire" heals the sick, frees the demonically oppressed and displays His true Power in the lives of people in this community and others, then everyone -- Believers or not -- will know that Heaven has sent the Eternal Human Being, Jesus Christ, into the world to bring us Life, and Life more abundantly.

Emil & Michele Swift
www.KingdomScribes.net

P.S. By the way -- if I don't think I have the "truth, the whole truth"...why do I keep the doors of our "church" open?

It's simple: When someone says casually to me, "Oh, where's your church? I think I'll drop in some Sunday morning," I usually say, "You're more than welcome -- but when you come in, don't expect to find yourself 'in church'. We're not so much a 'church' anymore as we are a Rallying Point in our region for God's Coming Revolution!" es

P.P.S. For those of you interested in finding out more about Revolution, by George Barna, please go to my Shelfari bookshelves towards the top of this blog, and click on the image of the book. (How cool!)

P.P.P.S.
Also, if you want to further discuss this post, or any of our posts,
please join or on-going Conversation about "Currents in the Church" in
the KingdomScribes Forum at KingdomScribes.net/phpBB3