New Thoughts (09/10/08-09/14/08)
Well! It’s been a long time since I’ve come through a period of preparation with such a singular focus in my thoughts. Everything I am looking at here centers on the matter of the apostle. Jesus has declared Himself God’s apostle in this passage, and by the way He declares it, He provides us with a good definition of what it means to be an apostle. Much of that definition revolves around the simple word para, a small word with a great wealth of meaning. I am cautioned, particularly by my last study, against setting too much freight on that word, and yet, I am not alone in seeing more there than just, “I am from Him” in verse 29. The CJB, for instance, takes this as “I am with Him.”
If I settle for “I am from Him”, how is this any different than the “He sent Me” which follows? It adds no new information to the claim Jesus is staking out. But, when that sentiment moves to “I am with Him”, wow! Not only does this add the power of such proximity, the implications of deeper intimacy with this One Who sent Him, but it is also held in the present. Even now, I AM with Him.
Running counter to this perspective, I will note that the NET takes pains to push us away from thinking this is a claim of origin and genesis in Him. This stands as a warning not to read too much into what He is saying. Yet, the reaction of the crowds would lead me to think that they heard, if not that exact claim, then at least something very near to it. They had to have understood first that when Jesus spoke of this One who sent Him, He was speaking of God. Had that been all they thought He meant, though, they would only have heard Him claiming to be a prophet, hardly a reason to seize Him. If they thought He had prophesied falsely, perhaps there would be reason, but there’s no sign that this is the case. No, it seems to me that they must have heard Him claiming something more, that it’s this issue of being with God that so offends, for they understand that this must further imply being equal with God, and therefore being God. I wonder if they didn’t hear it more as, “I AM with Him.”
I know Him because I am from Him, because I am ever near Him, because I AM with Him. He sent Me, an apostle of God, commissioned to a specific purpose and given full authority to accomplish that mission. That is one powerful claim. Every prophet of God could say they were commissioned to that office by God. They could, when speaking His oracles, lay claim to being commissioned so to speak. Look at their records. Isaiah, Jeremiah and others as well are careful to lay out the events of their commissioning to office. They are careful to present their prior record that the people might find reason to have confidence in their present declarations. They do this to assure that when they say, “Thus sayeth the Lord,” they do not do so lightly. But, Jesus makes a claim more powerful. His entire purpose in life is that to which He was commissioned by the One who sent Him. Did any prophet ever make such a claim, that God had sent them into the world for this one purpose, this one mission? Jeremiah comes close, I think. But even he stops short of what Jesus has just claimed. He must, for only Jesus is able to make such a claim in truth.
So, He declares Himself the Apostle of God. He is as unique in this office as He is as the only begotten Son of God. In fact, if we look at what He says here, we have a very good working definition of what it means to be an apostle. An apostle is one given a specific mission to accomplish. He is also given all authority to carry out that mission. He is one sent. He doesn’t just happen to be in the right place at the right time. He is sent, ordered into position and given charge to do. But, to have been sent, the apostle must have been with. You cannot be sent out from a place you’ve never been. Yes, you could be commissioned over the phone, but then you haven’t really been sent out.
The apostles of Jesus the Christ and Apostle of God understood this. Look at their deliberations when the time came to replace Judas Iscariot. What criteria did they put forth? “It is necessary that we choose from among those who have been with us all the time that the Lord Jesus was among us, from the time John baptized Him until the day of His Ascension. One such as this should join us as witnesses of His resurrection” (Ac 1:21-22). This was the first qualification, having been with. They followed with prayer, calling upon the Lord to make His choice known (Ac 1:24). This provides the commission. Apart from God’s choosing, there can be no authority. After all, any number of people could lay claim to satisfying that first clause. No doubt, any of the 120 or so that remained in that upper room could make such claim. No doubt, many more besides. But, only God could give the commission.
How do we fit this with Paul’s authorization? That he was given commission is sufficiently attested to, and not solely by his own witness. He had confirming testimony from those who were sent to him from Damascus. But, how does he satisfy the first part, the being with? It’s not impossible, that he may have been present there when Jesus was baptized. There had been representatives sent out from Jerusalem to check John out. We are not told that Paul was among them (and under the circumstances you would think he would make note of it if he had been), but silence is not evidence against that possibility. I do find it doubtful that he had witnessed the moment of the Ascension. If he had, surely his conversion would not have waited so long. But, we might consider him a witness of the Ascension nonetheless, given that Damascus road experience. So, while he was clearly not to be counted among the disciples of the Christ during that period, he was at least familiar with events. How could he not be, as a member of the Pharisees? Jesus had said so much specifically about this sect, and surely, given their fierce reaction to His barbs, they had discussed Him.
Going further in the book of Acts, it seems clear that there were others known as apostles. Barnabas, for instance, is called an apostle alongside Paul (Ac 14:14). Yet, the care Paul takes to establish himself as a true and valid apostle makes it clear that the title was not to be applied loosely. Others were also referred to as apostles, although perhaps not so clearly. Indeed, we might take Paul’s warning against false apostles (2Co 11:13) as some degree of evidence that there were true ones, such as Apollos (1Co 4:6), Andronicus and Junias (Ro 16:7), and others both named and unnamed. Yet, these are clearly apostles in a somewhat lesser sense. Later usage suggests that the term, thus used, is nearly equivalent to our conception of the missionary; messengers sent on a mission, settled in no specific church.
The ISBE, to my surprise, seems to support views that would allow for there being an apostolate in our own day. They note Paul’s use of the term in cases which all but preclude there having been any personal witness of the ministry of Christ. They also look at the Didache which, though not canon, is still expressive of early church life and order. This makes note of a class of apostles which, if not of the same stature as the twelve, were still considered as having that office. The distinctive which the ISBE sets forth is that of missionary endeavor, the effort to spread the Gospel and spread the boundaries of the Church. Thus, for instance, they exclude James, brother of Jesus, because his ministry was to the local body, the church in Jerusalem. Prophet and teacher, yes, but not apostle is their verdict.
Certainly, given that an apostle is one sent on a specific mission, the idea of a missionary as an apostle is fitting. But, then, by Paul’s usage, the churches often had their own apostles. Of course, in some sense, every church is a mission, for every church is established in the midst of a fallen world and remains surrounded by potential converts yet to be reached. If we begin to look at our church in this light again, and to see ourselves in this light again, perhaps this might rekindle some fire of faith within us and give us motivation to be fruitful and multiply the kingdom.
Suffice it to say, then, that Jesus assuredly had His mission assigned by God, and He gave clear evidence that God’s authority backed Him in this mission. All claims of apostleship aside, we ought to be able to make the same statement. As we serve in the work of the kingdom, we surely ought to be doing the things God assigns to us. All other work, however much it might benefit the kingdom, is work accomplished in spite of us. It is rebellion in disguise. This is the issue with excessive zeal – it knows no guiding power, but simply launches off after whatever project seems good. Dead works, every time! If we are going to make our claim of being bondservants of Christ more than just an empty claim, then we must reach a point where we can join Him in saying, “I do only what I have seen Him do. I say only what I have heard from Him.”
The other piece of the picture is the proof of authenticity. A real man of God, a true believer, will always have that which testifies to the truth of his faith and character. Notice what it is that convinces at least a part of this crowd that Jesus is as He claims to be: What He has done has been such clear, constant and cumulative proof that God is at work. Who could ask for greater proof? Who could give it if they were asked? As I have noted already, the prophets God sent were likewise prepared by developed testimony. They could point back not only to the time of their appointing, but also to a record of lesser, accurate prophecies as proof of their provenance. Given the Biblical punishment for false prophecy and the call upon the people to so punish its practitioners, this was then and should be now a very necessary thing to establish.
It goes beyond the prophet, though. Yes, there is great need in that case to establish the veracity of the prophet’s sources. Yes, being such a matter of spirit, the spirit is to be tested. But, in so much as we serve as ambassadors of Christ, representatives of the heavenly kingdom which is our true home, we, too, should have a testimony which proves our credentials. I am not, in this instance, talking about the conversion experience, the ‘how I met the real Jesus’ sort of testimony. I am talking about the testimony that is evidenced by the life we have lived since that time. We are admonished to judge the man by his fruits. We must see in that that we, too, are to be judged by our fruits.
So, let me put this in terms most personal. What does the evidence of my life say about my authority to speak for God? I have heard a lot about how we need to make sure we’re clean and ‘good with God’ before we try and go out and serve His kingdom. I suspect, however, that if we are waiting for that point we will spend our entire life waiting. More important is the question of whether He actually called us to do that particular service, whether it is a work He prepared for us. An ambassador that just does as he pleases is no ambassador. He is abusing his office to amuse himself. No, the man of God is not going to be in a place of perfect obedience as he serves. He will, however, be in a place of obedience. His heart and mind are set on pursuing what God has called him to pursue. His desire is to accomplish the work God has set before him.
This, however, is still the present concern. What of the past? If faith has not produce perfection, what has it produced? How can others see that God is indeed at work in me if I have these failures? And, I assure you, I have these failures! Once again: it is the evidence of life so far that will either proclaim or deny that I am moved by God’s authority and stand in His authority. It is all well and good to say that as husband, I am head of the household, and have authority delegated to me by God. It is another thing altogether to prove by example and prove by experience that I take that authority seriously and use it wisely.
It is one thing to know and declare that God has in Himself the power to change one’s life, to forgive one’s sins and to keep one on course towards the kingdom reward. It is another thing altogether to be able to point to instances where He has clearly done so. It is another thing to go through the crisis and come out the other side knowing and showing a character determined to reflect God’s character. That is the testimony! Given the opportunity to slide by, did I instead choose the honest and honorable path? Given the chance to profit at some slight cost to character, which did I choose: profit, or character? I know I have not always chosen as I ought. Certainly, in younger days, I was perfectly happy to skate through any situation I could by whatever means I could. I was perfectly happy to take whatever gains might come my way by whatever means.
I know I can say that this has changed. I have seen crises of character beyond anything I ever thought to face, and I have seen myself answer to these crises in ways I would not have expected in prior years. Indeed, I have seen in these times of crisis a display of character that is, quite frankly, beyond my capacity. It is in these situations that I have been forced to recognize something greater than myself in action. These are the ‘but for the grace of God’ moments. I know how I could have responded. I know I am perfectly capable of having responded in just that fashion. I know I didn’t. I also know that I am not alone in being aware of that. There are witnesses to what could have been and what was. These are my evidence. You are not asked to judge by the evidence one gives of himself. It is the testimony of witnesses that determines.
Earlier this week I found myself serving my civic duty as juror at trial. Much to my surprise (and to some degree, to my dismay) I found I was indeed selected to sit on a jury; to hear a case and join in making determination of a man’s guilt or innocence according to the rule of law. And, yes, the judge instructed us on the fundamentals of making that determination as the laws of this country require. The man is to be presumed innocent unless his accusers establish beyond reasonable doubt that he is not so. In this particular case, there really was nothing more than the testimony of witnesses upon which to base that judgment. In fact, the nature of the case was such that there were really only two witnesses who knew what had transpired, and these were in conflict one with the other. No further, corroborating evidence was offered, although it was hinted that such evidence existed.
What we were left to render our verdict with was who to believe, if anybody? The words of testimony were by and large useless to determine the case, in particular because there were no ‘two or three witnesses’ upon which to establish credibility one way or the other. Neither was there any history by which one could establish the character of either defendant or accuser. There was only what their behavior on the dock presented to the senses, and such evidence as that is, of course, subject to one’s senses and sensitivities. Given where my studies have been of late, how could I but recall to mind, “do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment” (Jn 7:24)? Did we get at the truth in this case? I don’t think we can know, really. What we could determine is that the prosecution had not done their job. They had not established anything beyond reasonable doubt. One tale told by one witness establishes nothing.
This is exactly why Jesus defends Himself somewhat by making clear that He is not alone in His testimony regarding Himself. Father and Spirit also testify, in this case through the works He has done. Clearly, some at least recognized the power of that testimony! Those who did not could not claim a lack of evidence. They had to purposefully and deliberately deny the evidence. Before I go down that path of thought, though, let me finish with the last.
For many who may read these studies, you know nothing of me except what you find here. Arguably, then, you know nothing of me except what I choose to reveal. I can tell you (and if you wish to dig, you can see signs of it) that I have committed before God to be as open and honest in these pages as I am able. These studies were not always put out on the web. When I started, it was just me and God chatting here as I typed. When I first began moving things to the web, I had deep concern as to how that might impact the nature of this time I spend with Him. I prayed then and there that He would bring correction to my approach if I should start being more careful of my words for fear of what others might see in them. I cannot say I have always been successful in maintaining that full openness with Him, but I can say that He has been faithful in drawing me back to it when I have wandered.
I cannot say that the nature of these study times has not undergone change over the years. I find myself more often wandering into the didactic, writing as though to some unknown audience rather than talking to God and self. This is something that I suspect will ebb and flow as God sees fit to restore me to earlier, shall we say more innocent, times. That said, I do believe there is sufficient evidence in my life to show that I am indeed a child of the living God, fit by Him for service to Him.
Something came to mind as I considered that courtroom experience this week. Do you know, this is exactly what transpires in the courts of heaven? The Accuser of the brethren comes. He has you or I in the dock, accused of crimes most heinous. His accusations are doubtless grounded in fact. But, here’s the thing: you or I, if we are sons of God, are the only witnesses he has to call on. All other evidence has been denied by the Judge. The Law requires that the case be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses, but no other witness is found to testify against you! Even if you are so honest as to confess, here is the amazing thing: our Attorney, our Advocate, stands as the only other available witness (for He is, after all, omniscient), and His testimony is that He has no recollection of any such crime having been committed! How can that be, when He is Righteous and True? It can be because He is also Forgiveness. He is Forgiveness in its full perfection. In that power of forgiveness, He really has cast all thought of that offense from His mind. When He said He had cast those sins of yours (or of mine) into the sea of forgetfulness, He really meant they were forgotten – stricken from the court records and stricken from memory. So, He is able to testify truly, “I don’t remember any such thing.” And, by the rules of evidence, we remain innocent, for guilt can no longer be proved.
Now, I want to return to this matter of how one responds to such evidence. I noted with regard to Jesus that the evidence of His office, His godhood, were such that to deny them required a determined and willful act. This is reflected in Paul’s conviction of mankind at large in Romans 1:18-19. You know the truth, but you willfully suppress it, try to hide away, reject it, pretend it’s not true. Amazingly, even in their fallen condition, what is known of God is evident within themselves! God made them thus. Truly, He is a master craftsman! Yet, still, they will deny it. Still, they will deny Him. Is it any wonder that His wrath is revealed against such rebels?
In this case, though, the situation is all the more blatant. They are confronted not with an abstracted experience with the spiritual but with the very thing itself. Here is the Son of God, proven (as some recognize) by any number of signs. Every last thing that prophecy said would accompany Messiah has been done by Him. It would be ludicrous to require more evidence of His office, if it were not so terrible a crime against heaven. Absolutely absurd! And yet, when He actually makes the claim, even in such veiled words, there are those who are ready to take Him out and stone Him. This is it! This is the crisis moment! Those who encounter this Jesus, with all that He has said and done, must make a choice. There is no more time given for deliberation. They must either accept that He IS as He claims, or they must reject Him utterly, with no further opportunity given for a change of heart.
This is the other side of the Gospel coin. On the on hand, it is the greatest good news a man could ever hear. But, it does bear the moment of crisis on its wings. Having heard the evidence, having heard the announcement that ‘we have found Him, He is here’, that hearer must now answer to the evidence. No time for deliberation. Choose you this day. Will you accept what God has so graciously offered, or will you reject Him once for all? We don’t tend to think of it in such stark terms. We are, because we are such softies, inclined to think God will forever offer second chances. God is Mercy, and He is Love, after all. How could He not? But, even mercy and love have their limits.
I have heard it preached that Isaiah 57:16 is one proof of those limits, where God says, “I will not contend forever.” Yet, the whole tenor of that section is one of salvation. It is set in a beautiful working of “I will revive, ” and “I will heal.” And yet, it closes with a dire reminder, “There is no peace for the wicked” (Isa 57:21). No, this does not support my premise.
There is, however, this text in Hebrews: “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:26-31).
Generally, I hear this explained as a warning against apostasy. It is offered by those who hold such a view as a proof that one can lose their salvation. I am not so sure. Is that what is bound up in the idea of having received knowledge of the Truth? Could that not as easily be a reference to having heard the Gospel message? If so, it is indeed a terrifying thing! Now, over against this, I must note my own experience, which I have no doubt is an experience familiar to many. The day in which I submitted to the Lord – I cannot say I came to Him for I know He drew me, laying the most clever of traps for me, if you will allow the thought – was not the first time I had heard the Gospel. Why, I’d been in the church for months by then. Surely, I had heard about this Jesus and what He meant. Certainly (though I don’t recall a specific instance) I must have heard an altar call, a plea for unbelievers to ‘choose Christ’. Never mind the absurdity of such a concept – as if I could, in my fallen state, ever so much as contemplate such a choice! No! He chose me, and He unblocked my ears to finally hear that Gospel with comprehension. That is the crisis moment.
Is it possible, in those circumstances – when the finger of God has touched the ears to open them to His good news – that one could reject Him? In a way, it strikes me as an absolute impossibility – thwart the will of God? Who has such power in himself to counter the will of the Almighty? But, then, this is the same God who hardened Pharaoh’s heart. This is the same God who allowed the crowds we see in this passage to witness the evidence, even hear it explained how this proved Messiah’s presence in their midst, and yet left them free to choose His death instead of their life. So, yes, I suppose it is possible. I suppose we might say that right there in the moment of crisis is the awakening of free will in man. The blinders have been taken off. The light of the Truth has shone in the eyes and the ears have heard the Word of Life. And then comes the “choose you this day.” And, if one chooses to ‘go on sinning willfully after receiving this knowledge of the truth’, what is that but to ‘suppress the truth in unrighteousness’? What sacrifice could possibly remain that would wash away such a crime? Having trampled the very Son of God under foot, can they really expect mercy from the Father? No, “Vengeance is Mine,” sayeth the Lord! “I will repay.”
So, let me just say this: it is not the delivery of an altar call that defines the giving of the Gospel. It is not even the finest, most accurate and heartfelt preaching of the real message of the Gospel that defines the giving of the Gospel. It is no act of man, no speech of man, nothing, really, to do with man at all. It is all God. It transpires only when He sovereignly chooses to open the eyes and ears of a man – whether for good or for ill, frankly – to the Truth which the Gospel proclaims. Then and only then has the Gospel truly been given. Then and only then has the recipient received knowledge of the Truth. Then and only then is the crisis truly upon that one who has received. They must either accept Him Who IS the Lord, and accept Him fully, or they must reject Him utterly once and for all.
Oh, the process of sanctification is only begun in that moment, for those who accept. No, they will not submit in perfect obedience to this Lord they have placed themselves under. But, that Lordship is complete nonetheless. What He determines shall be changed in His subject shall be changed. What He determines shall be stripped away from His servant shall be stripped away. What He purposes to accomplish through His bondsman His bondsman will accomplish. It may be done only with many an error, but it will be done. He is Lord, and that ends the discussion, really.
As for that one who rejects this call, what remains? He has rejected his rightful Lord, and the Lord, in His ever-fitting punishment of sin, will rightfully reject him as well. As we might say, having made his bed, this one is left to lie in it. Has God, then, somehow coerced this one into rejecting Him? Never so! He has but held Himself back from such a one, allowing him his natural course. If we would seek God’s coercion, we might do better to look to those who have accepted His gracious offer. For, it is hardly to be thought that the heart of man, left to its own dark counsel, would gladly choose to take Him up on it. No, here is the coercion of God, sovereignly moving upon the heart of a man to choose life in spite of his penchant for death. Here is the loving oversight of the Father, rather forcing that first choice, if you will, that His children might learn how to choose wisely. Coercion? Yes, but the loving coercion that any loving parent would exercise over their own child. Is it coercion to prevent your baby from wandering out onto a busy street? Then so be it! And, thanks be to our Father, Who is even yet in heaven, that He is loving enough to so coerce us until we are able to take responsible hold on our own reins.
Next aspect of this matter: What do I do with the evidence that others proffer as proof that they are men of God? Am I open to their claims? Am I honest in assessing the evidence that their lives provide, or am I too quick to reject? This is an issue for me, I know. I have a strong skeptical streak when it comes to name brand Christians, as we might call them, particularly those who travel in the ‘signs and wonders’ circles. There have just been too many charlatans who have crossed the stage, and quite frankly, the evidence strikes me as inconclusive. I do not know any of these alleged brothers and sisters well enough to even begin to assess their character. They are not of the local body. I have had no interaction with them. What I have, frankly, is little more than self-testimony. Oh, sure, they may have a televised ministry with lots of claims aired week in and week out. But, we are savvy to the potential for fraud in television and have witnessed how easily the man of God can succumb to the power of that fraud.
So, yes, I’m more than a little leery of giving instant acceptance to these superstars of the faith; perhaps too leery. It simply strikes me that the evidence that is required demands a more personal relationship. It requires the opportunity to assess the fruit of this one’s life more directly. Frankly, the signs and wonders don’t strike me as the measure. After all, Scripture warns us that the workers of antichrist will have signs and wonders, too. These are things that can be faked, counterfeited. But, authentic character? That cannot be counterfeited, not in extended relationship. The tongue will eventually bear witness to the heart of a man.
The question remains, though, as to whether I will allow my ears to honestly listen to what that one’s tongue is saying. After all, there are those few on the national or international Christian stage whom I do trust as speaking the Truth. On what basis? I know these men no better or worse than others. Is it just that their ministry has a different focus? It’s not that they don’t ask for donations, certainly, for they do. Perhaps it’s because they don’t tend to make all manner of claims as to what they can demand from God on your behalf if only you’ll send your contribution now. I confess, that bears on my thinking. But, there’s more to it than that. I have heard their messages, and these messages have been shown to hold with what I find in Scripture. It’s the test of the Berean that has made them acceptable in my ears. I have gone to the Word revealed, and found that it upholds what they are saying. They have the witness of their prior messages to lend credence to future messages.
A guest speaker in the local church doesn’t always have this benefit. As often as not, we are hearing them for the first time, or maybe the second. We are asked to trust the judgment of our leadership in allowing these speakers to speak. But, really, they are often in much the same position as ourselves. They know little more of these speakers than we do. As often as not, they find themselves having to correct some aspect of what the guest has preached when that guest has departed. So, how is it that we should trust? I will say unequivocally that I trust my pastors to bring that correction both to guests and to themselves when it is necessary. Here, I do have the weight of evidence to support my trust. But, no. When it comes to listening to this guest or that, I must weigh what I hear against what I know Scripture to say. If it is any other gospel, I have no use for it, nor for the messenger that bears it.
That standard I dare not lower, and yet, I would ask that You, my God, would aid me in putting aside the excesses of skepticism that I know are in me. Show me, Lord, how to judge with righteous judgment as I give ear to those who come in Your name. Grant me to give them the respect they are due, to give them a fair hearing, and to assess them in Your wisdom not my own.
For, I see this verse which, as I review my preparations this morning, I included by ‘accident’ in looking up the parallel verses. And shall I consider this a mistake? Not at all. It is the hand of my God directing my studies as He will. So, there it is: “I have much to say and much to judge, when it comes to you. But He who sent Me is true. What I speak is what I heard from Him” (Jn 8:26). In context, this comes as a response to the question, “Who are You?” to which, Jesus answers, “What have I been telling you all along?” (Jn 8:25). So, what he needs to judge might be construed as their deliberate deafness in this regard. But, God saw fit to single out this verse for my attention. He not only set me up to consider this verse rather than the one the cross-references were pointing me to (and how, I don’t know), but He also caused it to capture my attention as I reviewed my findings in preparing for these writings. Now, to top it off, He has caused me to go check that reference, only to discover what has happened. Mystery of mysteries! Clearly, then, there is something here I need to really understand.
“I have much to say and much to judge, when it comes to you.” Yes, I am certain beyond doubt that this is true. I have much to say and much to judge when it comes to me, too. This is no defense, but it is true. I hear words come from my mouth that I would have thought long gone by now. I find thoughts and desires in me that have no place. I see habits continue that should have died out years ago. Much to judge. I can offer much to say about my weaknesses, about the sour side of my character and perspective, things that reflect poorly on the kingdom I represent. I can pass judgment on my willingness to let these things continue unchecked and unchanged. I can note my tendency to just leave it to God in such a way that I try to reject any responsibility of my own. If He’s not going to fix it, after all, how can I expect to? Unless the Lord builds the house, would it not be a vain labor? Certainly, but if He is building and I’m busy putting up all sorts of interference and doing my best to tear down what He’s done so far, how is that any better?
Yes, Lord, You do indeed have a wealth of material upon which You could pass judgment in my case should You so choose. Absolutely! Yes, and there is much You have to say to me, much to correct. Holy sweet Jesus, please touch these ears to hear it when You do so. Continue to so will in me that I am willing to what You must do in me. Soften this heart and stir this mind to seek You in every moment. Let me put aside my pride in my own intelligence. Let me put aside my need to be acceptable in the eyes of those I am with, and seek instead to revel in Your wisdom and to be acceptable in Your eyes. Yes, Lord, and let me be mindful that it is not my place, in the end, to pass judgment on other of Your servants. It is You they serve and to You they shall answer. Let me, then, satisfy my own role as protector and guide of myself and my family, and let me do so in righteousness, not in appearance and opinion. Let me save my rejection for those You reject, and for all others let me express the love You declare for me.
Then, there is the second half. “He who sent Me is true. What I speak is what I heard from Him.” There is a bit of defense in that statement. It is introduced with a ‘but’. You, I am in position to judge and counsel, but. Since He who sent Me and whose words I speak is True, you are in no such position. This is the way of it for any representative God sends. Any one who speaks His Word must be able to declare honestly, “He is my source.” How I need to take this to heart! How I need to keep mindful of this as I teach, even as I study, being as I publish these studies for others to read. If I cannot make this claim, I need not pursue the thought here. If it is not His thoughts I am expressing but only my own opinions, I am a danger to others and a danger to myself.
I was recently given cause to consider the meaning of dogma. In this context, it’s interesting to note the contrast of its meaning with that of doctrine. Doctrine is the collected principles of knowledge or belief, that which is taught. It is instruction in the Truth, if it is sound. Dogma on the other hand is more a formulation of one’s opinion, one’s point of view. Now, I note that Webster goes on to add a definition declaring that dogma is the doctrine stated as authoritative in the church. But, what becomes interesting is to see what is said of one who is dogmatic. Such a one expresses opinions as if they were fact. So, yes, a fine distinction in the end, but a distinction worth noting.
I have attempted to keep myself concerned with matters of doctrine as I prepare each study. It is a question I ask of every passage I come to. What doctrine does it propound? But, if my answers are but my own opinion, if I am using the text (abusing the text) to bolster an opinion rather than allowing it to form my opinion, then I have become dogmatic. If, in expounding as I do in these periods of New Thoughts, I am just thinking on my own and not really pursuing what God has for me to pursue, then I am become useless, pushing my own dogma rather than His doctrine.
My concern has long been to remain faithful to the Truth God reveals. Have I always been successful in maintaining that focus. I doubt it. But, I continue to seek that end. And, I commit myself once more to it even now.
Lord, You are my source. I have not always been faithful to bear that in mind, but I commit myself once again to that end. Be my source, Holy God. Let the things that come in these times of study be the things of Your own heart, not the empty musings of my imagination. Else, let it end.
