Union and Communion

One thought has recently surfaced in discussions on the pastoral staff: we have lost the mystical. No one meditates. We keep our daily fifteen-minute devotion and walk out the door without God.

Not only do we not meditate; we do not read good books. Our mind is drugged by TV drama but not pushed and challenged by godly authors. No wonder the epidemic of Alzheimer's. Here's a sure cure.

In the 1650s an English Puritan preacher named John Owen wrote a tome entitled Communion with the Triune God. It has recently been edited and reprinted (at 448 pages) by Crossway Books. His thesis: believers need to know their God in order to be faithful worshippers. How do we know God, Owen asks? In his three persons (Father-Son-Spirit). The way you understand the One is through the Three. There is no "God behind the Gods."

In preparing these sermons for publication, Owen ended up penning more about the person of the Holy Spirit than any other Western theologian before him. He walks the line between two camps emerging in the seventeenth century: the rationalists and the emotionalists. The first group diminished the activity of the Spirit. The second prioritized spiritual experiences without checking that they came from the Holy Spirit. Churches today are not very different. Either they ignore the Spirit, or they are spiritual but not biblical.

Owen was clear on a key doctrine: standing and state (or what he calls union and communion). Our standing is a unilateral action by God, which establishes our relationship with him in heavenly places, and does not ebb and flow. Who we are "in Christ" does not change with out changes. This is our union and is the standing of all true believers.

Relationship requires response, so our state is our earthly experience of communion, and it can fluctuate. It is who we are in the world. Communion is our continuous prayer, corporate worship, and biblical meditation. Since you missed that, you better go back and read those three things again, because forsaking them does not make God love us less, but having them makes our state come closer to match our standing. Giving into temptation and neglecting devotion (forsaking our consecration) puts us in a state that threatens our communion, but not our union.

Four things flow from recognizing this distinction.
1. We are saved by God's grace, which is freely detached from either who we are, who God foresees we could become, or what we have done. State is not based on standing. Union is not based on our sense of communion.
2. The children of God have a real relationship with God, which means there are things they do in communion to either help or hinder it
3. Our unchangeable union with Christ is what encourages us to turn and return from sin, claim our forgiveness, and restore our fellowship with God
4. Obedience flows from our standing in grace; it affects our communion but is never the ground for our union

How do we relate to the Spirit, Owen asks? By distinguishing between sanctification and consolation. Sanctification is the Spirit’s work that sets us apart as belonging to Christ. It enables our standing, our union with Christ. Consolation is the Spirit’s word that enables our communion and enhances our state in our circumstances.

Want a reviving revelation? You do not have to be passive in the Spirit’s work of consolation. Do three things.
A. Seek the Spirit’s comfort by focusing your mind and meditation on scripture’s promises. This will give you correct mentality.
B. Call out in prayer for the Spirit to bring you correct emotions through his consolation, and strengthening with might in the inner man. This will give you correct motives and feelings.
C. Pay attention to the Spirit’s “monitions” or movement in your life. This will allow your will to follow correct thinking and feeling.

Typical of most all Puritan authors, this is a detailed work, not for the faint of heart. It will repay your attention. If your attention span is not that long, then get Spurgeon (1) and read him, because he sucked-out all the marrow from Owen before he preached. And remember, he who is the Comforter always abides, even when he is not doing his work of comforting.

(1) For example, Spurgeon's Sermons on Jesus And the Holy Spirit, Charles Spurgeon. Hendrickson, 2006. And, The Unknown God: 25 Sermons on the Subject of the Holy Spirit, Charles Spurgeon. Fox River Press, 2003.

Alan's Faves—Love to the edge of doom

1 Cor 13:7 Charity… believeth all things,

Love is not gullible. When Jesus was kissed by Judas, he didn't say, "Oh you sweet boy. I'm so glad you changed your mind about betraying me."

No. Love still recognizes the kiss of a traitor, but love is willing to believe anything until it knows it is wrong. This means if someone wants another chance, love can grant it within Biblical parameters and structure.

Love is not easily deceived. Love is not blind, but it is absent a suspicious nature. Puppy love is blind; God's love simply takes the best possible view of others in every circumstance. Love will consider good motives. Love will make every allowance for failure.

When a man or woman falls, after he has repented and stood back up again, love will think about the battle he or she must have fought! Love will think about the struggle he or she must have had before being cut down. That’s why my personal favorite poem is Say Not the Struggle Nought Availeth.

Say not the struggle naught availeth, the labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth, and as things have been they remain.
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars; it may be, in yon smoke conceal'd,
Your comrades chase e'en now the fliers—and, but for you, possess the field.

For while the tired waves, vainly breaking, seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making, comes silent, flooding in, the main.
And not by eastern windows only, when daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly, but westward, look! the land is bright!

—Arthur Hugh Clough, 1819–1861

My favorite quote is by Teddy Roosevelt.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to he man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew niether victory nor defeat.

—Theodore Roosevelt, 1858-1919

1 Cor 13:7 Charity… hopeth all things,

Even when belief in a loved one's goodness or repentance is shattered, love keeps hoping on. That way, as long as God's grace is operative, human failure is never final. Shakespeare speaks of this quality of charity in one of his sonnets.

Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
Oh no, it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wan'dring [ship],
Whose worth's unknown, although his [height] be taken.
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

I think the Shake was meditating in his Bible that day. This is a photograph of Jesus Christ. We will produce these qualities of a Biblical love—not by self-improvement, not by self-attainment—but we will do it by responding to life's challenges in the character of Christ, who has already shed abroad the love of God in our hearts (Rom 5:5). These are the only qualities that make life worth living.

Three Levels of Heroes

2 Cor. 9:10 Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness;

Heroes. Have you seen the show? It's an exposition of different elements of the glorified body. Each character has a different part (like the ability to heal, to fly), but the body we get after the rapture (or the resurrection) has all the elements they list.

God is calling us to summon the Heroes of the last days. He wants you to become his hero on the street. How do you do that?

Spiritually, we need a devotion to certain disciplines. Let the Bible become your daily manna. Use our Prayer Diary as a spiritual discipline to get close to God. Read–Pray–Meditate. That’s the manna principle.

Financially, you have to set your budget to include stewardship.

Family—we need to study the Bible and ask God to make us a better single, spouse, parent and relative.

Servant: our relationships have to result in reproduction.

On what three levels do you need to be effective as a Hero for Christ?

Level 1. What I can do with my family and myself (the cell level)—that’s addition. We’ll talk about this when we start our series on "Perfecting Parenting" in the Career Class in November.

Level 2. What I can do with my spiritual family and others (the class level)—that’s multiplication. Make sure you come to church and get connected.

Level 3. What we can do together with God (the quantum level)—that’s the synergy and explosion of revival. Seek to be involved in ministry. Help us construct a teen center at Community LINC, 40th and Troost, on Nov. 2-3, or go with us to reconstruct the lower ninth ward of New Orleans next summer (signup online).

To lead on a higher level you need to live on a higher level, love on a higher level, and learn on a higher level. We will teach you, if you are willing to live and love at the next level. Raise it up a notch this Sunday at 9:00 am in the gym.

Gaugamela

What were the greatest events in history? Just the ones recorded in the Bible? How is it that there are so many people and events listed as "great," and yet biblical events are mostly relegated to unimportance, and even considered unhistorical?

It must be remembered that from a practical perspective, we always view history as a series of events that leads up to US. That is why "Western Civ" is so important. It is a view of history leads us to us. And since we see ourselves as on top of the world, then the "great" events in history are the ones that bring up to prominence.

Like Winston Churchill pointed out, history is written by the victors. (Or actually, I think someone asked him how they could ensure that historians after the war did not judge him too harshly for bombing large civilian populations, starting firestorms in major cities and he tersely replied, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.")

Many great battles have been fought by military geniuses who were African and Asian. But since we in the west are on top (generally speaking), the only people and events that are really great to us are the ones that got us here (on top). Remember that because we will have cause to come back to it.

Alexander is called "the Great." From the standpoint of western civilization, one of the greatest battles of history was the one he fought against Darius in 331 BC. The fate of the whole Persian Empire was at stake. The one who wins comes out on top and can make history kind to himself, for he will write it.

It was a great battle for other reasons. Alexander had less than 50,000 troops. Darius had probably five times as many. He was able to position a quarter million men in a line that strung two miles wide. The cavalry rode on the ends at right and left flank. In the middle were columns of 200 war chariots (you know, the ones like you saw in Gladiator; they have scythes sticking out the side, ready to make relish of the Macedonian military).

Alexander was to attack, yes, but there are ways of attack other than by charging. Alexander went for the psychological offensive. He was fast and mobile. Darius was fighting from a stationary position. The great Greek had to probe the line long enough to find a weak spot and exploit it so he could "capture the flag" before he was decimated (or capture the king, as the case may be). Watch how he worked it.

He started with an unconventional battle formation. All along the road from Macedon to modern-day Mosul (which Gaugamela is near), Darius thought he was leading Alexander into a trap. Now Alexander starts leading him. A new battle formation forced Darius to either think outside the box (because Alexander was marching over the sides), or else be confused and make a mistake.

Darius sees troops coming at him like a wedge. In the center is the Greek phalanx: 256 men (16 rows of 16), with 16-foot spears bristling out their front. The point of that wedge begins to press his center line.

But on the Persian right, where Darius' cavalry were located, there was a space of open land. Mounted men abhor a vacuum. So they galloped forward and engaged the Greeks.

Now, on the Persian left, Alexander and his cavalry begin to ride toward the end of the line. Hold it. That's not fair. I mean, even though the Persian front is two miles wide, Alexander and some horsemen are about to march right off the prepared field of battle, and try to ride around the Persian flank. Darius can't let that happen. But there is no umpire to call Alexander out of bounds, so Darius orders his cavalry on the left to stop Alexander and his men.

They trail him along the line. They both ride parallel. What the Persians cannot see is that Alexander, riding slowly, has light infantry moving with him on the other side, out of sight of the Persian soldiers. They are equipped with bows, smaller close-quarters spears, and slingshots designed not to do damage so much as harass and create confusion.

Game on. The Greek phalanx is pressing on the Persian center (behind which are Darius and his own guard, giving orders). So Darius sends out the chariots (remember, the ones with the blades fixed to their wheels).

But with Alexander, nothing is unanticipated. He has trained his men. When a chariot comes riding toward their phalanx of 256 men, the center rows move away, creating a three-sided box. And since horses don't like to run into long sharp spears (no matter what the charioteer tells them), they rode right into the center of the box. The box then becomes a killing zone. The horses are gutted by the spears of the men in the last few rows at the back. And the men on the sides of the box kill the charioteers at will. So much for 200 war chariots.

Darius surveys the battlefield and what does he see. Right flank? Cavalry engaged with the Greeks. Center? A phalanx pressing heavily against his troops, who have been wearied by standing at attention all night long (and they have shorter spears and heavier shields than the Greeks). Perhaps I forgot to mention that. Persians didn't like to fight on a day that they had not offered a morning sacrifice. So, since Darius was not certain that Alexander might not make a night anyway, he ordered his men to stand in formation all night long, (having made their sacrifices the previous day, so that they would not be attacked by Alexander while they were in mid-ritual).

Left flank? His line is stretched out. And just the moment that it wears thin enough, Alexander senses this, and makes a swift and ruthless attack to checkmate the Persian king.

It didn't matter he had a quarter million troops, five times that of Alexander. He had been given space on the right flank and his cavalry attacked, but was now pinned down. The bronze spears of the Greeks were weighing heavily on the chest of his two-mile wide formation. And now, ignorant of the light infantry shadowing the cavalry on the left, his other wing is pinned down while Alexander and his best men come rushing straight for him. What could he do? He turned tail And of course, that became the cue for the rest of the Persian contingent to turn tail as well.

Interesting Theo-Factoid
In ancient times God spoke to his people through night visions, and later to his prophets through dreams and visions. He did not speak as directly to the Gentiles, but he did speak. The way that he spoke was through the heavens (Matt 2), hence the cultivation of a tribe of scholars called the magi in Persia. They were able to see which way the astronomical wind was blowing, and so understood the negative portents for Darius in this battle. Of course, their careful observation also led them to Jesus when he was born.

And so now, remember what we said about the "great" events of history being those that got us on top? Well, the wheel is still turning! Those on bottom may yet be on top. The end of all things is the battle of Armageddon. And who is the winner there? Not the West. Not Europe. Not Asia. But Jesus, who rescues his people and makes them the head and not the tail of all the nations. How will history be (re)written then? Perhaps the status of Bible stories that explain how God's people get to their final destination will take on a whole new greatness.

What Revival Means

Psa. 104:16 The trees of the LORD are full of sap; the cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted;

Without sap a tree cannot exist, much less flourish. Vitality is essential to life. There has to be revival—a living principle infused by the Holy Spirit, or else we will not be one of the trees of the LORD. Just wearing the name “Christian” still makes you dead. You have to be filled with the Spirit in order to transcend from mere existence into real life. What does that mean?

Revival is mysterious. Do you understand the circulation of the sap? What force makes it defy gravity from the root to the leaf? In the same way, the flow of God's life is a great mystery. Somehow in revival, the Holy Spirit enters into you, becoming your life! This life, once initiated feeds off the Lord Jesus, and is sustained by the food of the word.

Revival starts in secret. The roots go deep, searching through the soil of the earth. We do not see how they suck, and transfer the minerals into the fruit. It is a work “curiously wrought” way down deep in the dark. Our root is Jesus. Our true life is hid in him.

Revival is permanently active. It is always full of energy—not always in fruit-bearing, but at least in inward operation. Graces go in motion. You are not always working for him, but you are always living on him. The sap then manifests itself in producing foliage, if not fruit.

Shall we pray? God, give me revival that your grace may be externally manifested through me. If I talk with you, then I will talk more about you. Make the sap flow in revival, and people will notice from observation that I have been with Jesus. Infuse me with your Spirit so fully that it fills my conduct and conversation with life! Amen.

Who's Afraid of the Emerging Church?

The emerging church movement, such as it is, defies classification. There are pastors like Erwin McManus of Mosaic, who are "emerging" because he started a church in LA in several venues, most notably a nightclub called The Mayan http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14501673
However, he is simply a Southern Baptist sheep in wolf's clothing.

Then there is the man that CT magazine calls pastor provocateur, Mark Driscoll in Seattle. This is "the cussing pastor" from Blue Like Jazz fame. His theology is John MacArthur but his style is Adam Sandler. Sort of a second-class Reformation.

On the other hand, there is not just emerging churches and emerging pastors, but the emergent movement. Put McLaren and Bell in that camp. They have overreacted to the pain of growing up fundy. Can I give you a synopsis of their UFO theology (it’s out of this world)?

1. The nature of the movement is based on conversation, not preaching. They do not want to decide or determine but facilitate sharing. Excuse me, provoke thought. The more voices the more stressful, excuse me, the more successful you are. Any final theological decisions made are kept strictly personal, thank you.

2. The nature of Biblical authority is such, that if not rewritten, it must at least be reinterpreted by every generation.

3. Certain previously accepted assumptions and arguments (conservative evangelical ones) should be rejected out of hand. The cardinal sin is to be pre-postmodern (if you don't understand what I am saying you already deserve to go to purgatory). Anything that smacks of post-enlightenment modernism is not modern enough. Yet the way to be postmodern is to go back to pre-modern elements. In emergent churches this may include liturgical rituals (candles, incense, and contemplative New Age practices). In scholarship it requires one to be familiar with patristics (the study of the thought of the early church fathers).

Okay, let me make a correction. Emergent is probably more of a fad than a movement. It will be self-limiting in evangelical circles for some key reasons.

A. They tend to play fast and loose with doctrine, and often develop a loyalty to the novel. Let's put it more generously. They are great at describing all sides of an issue, but stutter in delineating the right side.
B. They can spend a lot of time in talk with little substantive action (substantive in terms of advancing the mission defined biblically).

Ray Anderson offers some sane theological guidance in his new book, "An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches." He draws a distinction between the terms emergent/emerging that most readers and leaders in that movement probably won’t espouse, but I like his thesis. The church at Antioch had a mission to establish churches. Jerusalem sadly did not.

Along the way from Jerusalem to Antioch, Anderson points out that in an "emerging theology"
1. The difference is about theology, not just geography
2. It is about Christ, not Christology
3. It's about the Holy Spirit, not just spirituality
4. It's about the right gospel, not the right way to do church
5. It's about kingdom living, not kingdom-building
6. It's about the work of God as well as the word of God
7. It's about the church ahead of us, not the one behind us

Anderson is Senior Professor of Theology at Fuller Seminary in California. His book is endorsed by emergent activist Brian McLaren, which is an amazing thing given Brian's muddled thoughts on doctrinal issues. He and Rob Bell kind of go together as obscurantly reactionary anti-fundamentalists. One hopes that someday they will get over being hurt by "the man."