I have written several times about the Apostle Paul’s doctrine of the Cruciform – the idea that we “do not live, but it is Christ who lives” in us; that Christ is not our example, but our life supply and life for living; that it is a mystical, organic union that we experience with Christ, where we become a new creation when His Spirit mingles with ours; how we must experience the killing power of the cross. Paul found the lifestyle of the Cruciform, and not simply the doctrine, necessary in his life. He speaks of its reality in 2 Corinthians.

{See also, The Cruciform and Form of the Crucifixion and New Creation and the Mystical, Organic Union}

In 2 Corinthians 12:1-6 Paul describes revelations that he had received that were, literally, “beyond and above measure” according to human experience. In verses 7-10 he explains that, “To keep me from being proud above measure, there was given to me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me.” The Greek word translated “thorn” could (and probably should) be translated “stake” (as in, the three “stakes” that nailed Christ to the cross). The “stake” affected his flesh (Gal. 4:13) as they did Christ’s. Thus, it is here that the Cruciform is revealed to Paul. He has an understanding that the enemy injects himself into the flesh (Romans 7 & 8) and, thus, he must experience the Form of the Crucifixion (Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 2:20; Phil. 3:10) in the mystical killing of the flesh through the killing power of the cross.

Paul says that he “pleaded with the Lord three times for it to leave” him alone. And Jesus’ authoritative and final word to end the argument was, literally, “My grace wards off any danger of harm to the perfect you, for God’s grace is perfected in the weakness of the flesh.” God’s grace brings out and protects the perfectly intended you – that you that God imagined – when the fake you is at its weakest. Conversely, that real you remains hidden and suppressed when the fake you is at its strongest (when you live according to the flesh).

The power of grace lives and is strengthened in a person by the subduing of the flesh (2Cor. 12:10; Phil. 4:13). It is not that by converting to Christ a person experiences a magical change in the sinful flesh (that is why Christ killed it on His cross), but it is by colliding with Christ at the cross that a person experiences the killing of it. It is not that we simply deny our selfish desires (this is based on an improbability, for the flesh will not subject itself to submission), but we kill our selfish desires by nailing our flesh to the cross.

Personally, the Cruciform is not simply a doctrine for me either. I understand the need to live in the Form of the Crucifixion. Certainly my experience is not like Paul’s, but the need is likewise. I know what still lurks in my flesh – my fleshly thoughts, intents, and desires; animal instincts, unbridled, unaffected by grace. I understand that this is not about balancing out (or out-weighing) my flesh with spiritual things; for, according to Paul, and Christ for that matter, we cannot live in and out of both the flesh and the spirit (one will rule the other). Our flesh will not get “better” until the actual death and resurrection of it, but we have been equipped to live (now; today) as the expression of God. Oh, the necessity of the Cruciform!

While it is true that one can expect to be categorized by a single negative action, it can also be said that a single positive action does not necessarily speak to an individual’s habitual character (attitude, worldview, etc.). In other words, we can accidentally do what is good once in a while, but we purposely do not daily. The depths of our relationship with Jesus Christ can be an agent of change concerning this observation. But the fact remains: What we practice (or not) gives evidence to what we value (or not).

For far too long now, “church” has been a spectator sport. We come, fill the seats, watch the show – once a week – and have a satisfied sense that we have done our duty. “Church” once a week is a single act, not an habitual way of life. To participate AS the Church, rather than spectate IN the church, is what it means to be a Christ follower and not simply a Christ admirer. To “participate AS the Church” means we are the human expression of Christ to all humanity (and not only a select, targeted few).

I know that for many, the leadership of the church has left no place for those who wish to participate (in fact often it has been discouraged), but I also know that many others sneer at the thought of being more than a spectator and insist that “the pastor gets paid to do the work.”  Ironically, the latter are those (so-called matriarchs and/or patriarchs) who fight to maintain control of the “ministry” of the church (i.e., the money!) while at the same time having no notion of the “mission” that is the Church (i.e., the love of God).

The Church that Jesus built (and is still building, today) has always been one where everyone participates. Paul warned the Thessalonians not to continue to be “spectators,” and to the Corinthians he explained that the Church (by definition) is made up of many members who “participate” as differing parts of the whole (body of Christ).  

The Church is a movement from ideological values to values that are lived-out. It is true that Jesus effects transformation in the heart of the individual, privately. It is also true that Jesus effects transformation in the heart of the corporate, publically. While Jesus Himself works internally to change the individual, Jesus also works externally in the corporate (i.e., the Church) as an agent of change in the world. The individual (parts) participate as the corporate (whole), thereby expressing the Body of Christ (the Church).

A spectator can experience the reconciled relationship between God and ones-self (for a while at least). However, I do question whether or not a spectator can experience the reconciliation between God and humanity as a whole. And I flat-out deny that a spectator can experience the reconciliation between humanity and ones-self (as a member of humanity). A spectator can experience the fact that God rescued “me.” Perhaps, even, a spectator can experience the fact that God rescued “us” (though doubtful). But only a participator can experience the fact that God reconciled “us” to one another.

When talking about the present state of the church, the old saying “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” comes to mind. Certainly there are definite and (often) inexcusable faults with the “system,” but to scrap the whole thing is incredibly unwise, quite rebellious, historically ignorant, horrendously bad theology, and logically fatalistic. The Vision which God is pouring out onto humanity (as a whole, and not just “the church”) is not one that “reinvents the wheel,” but one which transforms what is already present; yet broken, lost, and confused.

When humanity was hopelessly broken, helplessly lost, and ridiculously confused (can I say that in the past tense, only?) God did not (does not) throw us out and “invent” something else through which to express Himself. God transformed that which was (is) already present – humanity – by the redeeming and reconciling work of His Son. That work finds its expression through the Church. Though humanity, frail as it is, continues to stink up the place, the transformation of God is still found at work in it. The “system” that is at work is the humanness of the church; the transforming work, however, is solely the divinity.

Personally (and psychologically), “doing church” was never of interest to me. I do enjoy arguing politics (if only for the sake of argument), but I still have never found the “politics of church” necessary. Yet God, with that sense of humor that He has, found it necessary to place me all-up-in the middle of it! Thus, I had to make it interesting; i.e., I had to focus not on the politics (the humanness) but the transforming act (the divinity). Likewise, I find the term “Bible Study” cultish and churchy; though, I find the act effectual and detrimental. Language and terminology are very important. The humanness corrupts, but the divinity transforms. So, I changed “Bible Study” to “Class,” and the inference changed to reflect the transformational action. In the same way, we must allow the transformation of our idea of “churching the un-churched” through our “youth groups,” “outreach programs,” and various other “ministries.”

If we change the language we change the (human) imagination, not the (divine) message. If we take what the church “has always done” and, rather than completely raze it and start over, change the way it looks, sounds, acts, smells, tastes, feels; if we change the logic of it from human centered to Christ centered, then transformation occurs by necessity. The Vision does not deny history, it does not destroy, it does not replace; it is not about good and bad, better or worse, right or wrong. The Vision builds on the firm foundation of “how we’ve always done it” and transforms it into the risky proposition of “how God is doing it.”

The Church that Christ builds is not an invention from replacement parts; it is an expression of the transformational work of the divinity in humanity. God knows not of any “do over.” God is not about “starting over.” God says: Look again! “I make all things new.”

There is much misinformation and many mixed signals when it comes to the subject (and/or object) of love. Specifically within Christian circles, with the Love Commands in particular, we become entangled in confusion, myth, and down-right perversion. But what we either ignore or (more probably) what we are completely ignorant of are the Degrees of Intimacy. When we do not understand the variables of human emotion and divine grace (and reason) in the context of love, we confound the proper, healthy relations in which we are called (and equipped) to live.

There are three major degrees of intimacy: Unconditional Love; Sexual Love and; Brotherly Love. Unconditional love is purely logical; it originates in God as a pure essence of God. God has no other form of love, but logical. God does not have the emotional expressions of “sex love” or “brotherly love.” Humans can have perfect (unconditional) love, but only in a proper relationship with God. And we are wrought with sexual and brotherly love precisely because of our humanity.

[Incidentally, we could also speak of our confusion over “love” and “lust.” Lust is the perversion of love; in fact, it’s the polar-opposite. Love gives, while lust takes. Love owes nothing and is owed nothing, while lust feels entitled to a perceived debt. The confusion is steeped in dysfunctional emotions.]

So, for example, in marriage: When one has an affair or is “no longer in ‘love’” with his/her spouse or is “in ‘love’ with another”, it is usually not based in “love” but pure emotion (though not necessarily sex). If that is true, then, it is not logical to have an affair or to utilize these excuses. Unconditional love, being based in logic and sound reason, dictates that one doesn’t have an affair because emotions are irrelevant when pertaining to “love.” However, emotions are directly linked to the degrees of intimacy in the two forms of “Erotic Love” and “Brotherly Love.” These are where we get our wires crossed. We often confuse erotic and brotherly love, thereby, crossing the boundaries of degrees. There is an old myth, based on Freudian Psychology, which states that two people of opposite genders cannot be friends (not for long, anyway). The truth is that here is where the two emotional “loves” become confused. The degrees of intimacy become unclear because the boundaries of “brotherly love” and “erotic love” become blurred.

As such, then, God’s unconditional love (and, therefore, that unconditional love in us for others) is pure logic with sound reason as a boundary. Where “erotic love” and “brotherly love” are complexities of emotions with the boundaries easily blurred because of the emotional links themselves. We can have an improper and unbalanced combination of the three degrees of intimacy, where love based in and governed by logic is replaced by love based on feelings – (either real or perceived) needs, wants; victimization; entitlement, and etc. The perversion comes when “love” is not clearly distinguished and we attempt to blur the lines of the degrees of intimacy in our personal relationships.

Therefore, logic (the basis for unconditional love) dictates that we are to have sexual love for one (but not necessarily any), brotherly love for many, and Perfect Love for all.

Freedom… Much is made of this idea, and especially recently. Legally it is the state of being at liberty rather than confined to restraints. Personally (both physically and mentally) it speaks of liberty as opposed to bondage and slavery. Socially it can have to do with the freedom from any external controls to speak one’s mind or freedom from external control in one’s actions. Politically it speaks of civil liberties that are opposed to despot dictators or governments. Yet, today, an all-encompassing popular definition for freedom could be that “we are free to do whatever we want or see fit.” But if that were true, wouldn’t our freedom infringe at some point on another’s? The United States, arguably the freest country in the world, is a country of laws designed to protect freedom (originally). If a country of laws, then how is it free according to the popular definition? And if freedom is to be “lawless,” how is it really freedom?

When we speak of freedom without a context it always, in reality, concerns our own sake. Like anything else the idea of freedom can be manipulated and perverted. The proper context for freedom is not found in the idea of lawless, but “without law.” Against freedom there is no just law which can ever find it guilty or limited. This context, though rarely mentioned, is the original intent for the idea of freedom. Freedom, first and foremost, is a benefit of grace (for without grace, generally speaking, there is no such thing as freedom). The source of freedom and, therefore, the idea of freedom is from the mind of God; the benefactor of grace.

Biblically, the idea of freedom is to be without religious regulations or restrictions of the Law; it is to be without the Law of Sin and Death; it is without the present Law of Corruption. Never do we find freedom as a license to serve our own selfish desires. In fact, manipulating and perverting freedom to be an excuse to do “whatever we want or see fit” is to again be accused by the Law; it is to again become subject to the Law of Sin and Death; it is the self-expression of the Law of Corruption. Do not confuse rebellion with freedom.

Logically, if freedom is the ability to do “whatever I want or see fit,” then the necessary conclusion is the eventual robbery of another’s freedom. Lawlessness is not a respecter of others and, therefore, is not in fact the state of being free; but, in all actuality, is only slavery to the desires and passions of the self; while attempting to force said freedom of the one onto all others. However, if freedom is the state of being without law, then it is bound by no necessary law (there are no just laws withstanding freedom); it respects all others, and is limitless in its scope and intentions for others. Freedom is not free. It entails sacrifice and suffering.

At the time of this writing North Carolinians are heading to their respective voting stations. Among the offices and positions on the ballots is a (perceived or actual) controversial amendment. If you do not know what I’m talking about, we need to have a different conversation. If you are aware of your surroundings, however, and what is going on in the world of religion as politics, I do not wish to change your political affiliation (evident by the fact that this is being posted the day after the primary), but only hope to conduce thought.

Concerning the officials: Do not be fooled by the (self-contradicting) laws of politics; for example, the law which states that a politician is subject to change his/her opinion dependant on to whom he/she is speaking. Or the law which insists that hypocrisy is always found in what my opponents say and do. Ironically, the laws of politics demand that there are no absolutes; save for those to which my opponents must adhere. A key variable in these laws of politics is based on the degree in which the voters – the public at large – are ignorant; not only concerning the facts of the matter, but also concerning the definition of ignorance (i.e. uninformed) itself.

As is the case concerning religion, when we are ignorant of the laws of politics at least two things result: First, we (the people) are but numbers to be manipulated by differing math formulas and equations in the hopes of ultimate control of the populous by the institution and, secondly, we (the people) believe or disbelieve everything we hear based on who (what party, race, religion, etc.) is speaking. Like the old psychoanalysis which explained that we were all abused in our childhood but simply suppressed the memory, we become self-induced victims because we allow someone or something else to think for us. There is an old adage which states, “If we are ignorant of history we are destined to repeat it.” Worse yet, I think, is the fact that, if we are ignorant of history, then someone can come along and re-write it.

There are deeper issues involved with Amendment One than the overly simplistic notion that this is about homosexuals. Emotions are not logical and, therefore, do not result from a thought process (but, rather, the lack thereof). Do not be fooled by hyper-emotionalism because it does not necessitate thought. The “Christian” argument is ridiculous simply because we have differing interpretations of the Scriptures, and (obviously) differ on to what degree the Cross of Christ is effectual. [Incidentally, the phrase “the Bible says…” is an insufficient and manipulative argument because it is your interpretation of what the Bible says.] Do not be fooled by (so-called) “Christian Ethics/Morals” because they are inconsistent and conveniently selective. While it is true that we cannot legislate morality (forcing what is “right” by making illegal what is “wrong”), it is also a fact that we cannot make “truth” relative. Do not confuse opinion with fact, and proof with conjecture. And “Freedom” does not mean I can do anything I want.

Do not be fooled, regardless of where you stand politically; despite your opinion on Amendment One, God stands on neither side. God is neither “Republican nor Democrat” (and neither is God “Independent,” but only in the absolute theological sense). God does not side with “pro” agendas of any kind (simply because they are in fact self-serving agendas). God does not favor, in spite of reports to the contrary, any separation of humanity what-so-ever. The fact that we have before us Amendment One, and the fact that “politics” is excused from common decency (not to mention the Laws of Logic), proves only the depths of depravity and alienation in which humanity lives, and nothing else. Vote with your conscious and voice your opinion, but know what they are first, and know that they are precisely that – yours.

From the perspective of Vision Casting, humanity can be (roughly) categorized into three cultures: The Churched Culture, the Un-Churched Culture, and the De-Churched Culture. Each culture can be further divided into sub-cultures and counter-cultures of a given category (such as race, tastes in music, and lifestyles, etc). Much of the attention, both positively and negatively speaking, has been centered on the Churched Culture; frankly, because it is the established culture of western civilization (especially in America). The Un-Churched Culture seems to always be the instigator of change. But it is the De-Churched Culture that is usually an over-looked, if not forgotten, category. Living among the un-churched the de-churched remember life as the Churched.

For better or for worse, regardless: By definition, then, the Churched are those that make up the establishment and have historically been the story tellers concerning it; the Un-Churched are those who have never been a part of the establishment and have no story to tell concerning it; and the De-Churched are those who have a memory of the establishment, but ultimately have no positive stories to tell concerning it.

Here is where most people confuse the categories.

The Churched has attempted to set the norms for society; the Un-Churched has never been a part of those norms (or that society) and, therefore, are unaffected by (and often ignorant of) such perceived norms and; the De-Churched feel victimized and alienated by these norms and, thus, the rejected (perceived or otherwise) become those who reject the norms.

As a rule (there are exceptions, which make it a rule), most of your atheists actually belong to the De-Churched Culture. Most of the Un-Churched are not a threat to the Churched Culture, except passively and by implication. It is those of the De-Churched that have abandoned “Christianity” and embraced the sciences as an alternative. They are those who target the church as enemies. The Un-Churched are oblivious to the cause and, honestly, until something changes, the De-Churched will disciple the Un-Churched, via ignorance, at an alarming rate. 

All three categories do have one thing in common: All have an inert need of Jesus Christ. The Churched must remember who it is the story is concerning and make disciples of His (rather than a religion). The Un-Churched must inhale the smelling salt of the reality of Jesus Christ; not by becoming churched, but by expressing Him in and by the Un-churched Culture. And the De-Churched must realize that their memories have nothing to do with Jesus Christ, but in fact only a culture (of which they’re no longer a part), and utilize their energies and talents in telling His story. In whichever category one finds oneself – regardless of the culture – Jesus Christ is powerfully crossing cultures for the building of His Church; not a simple culture, but a composite of the three.

I shall refrain from having a fit (and falling in it) concerning the (so-called) “Christian” idea of “Easter.” Nevertheless, I have yet to understand what an “Easter” bunny and “Easter” eggs have to do with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Eggs symbolize fertility (denoting the pagan goddess of fertility), and bunnies are known for their ability to increase the rabbit population rather quickly, but bunnies don’t lay eggs! Certainly the resurrection of Christ speaks to the empty tomb, where his body previously lay, after being buried, having been crucified for the sins of all humanity; yet, I don’t recall reading about bunnies and eggs in the Good News accounts. And as long as we continue to mix our symbols ignorance of the facts will pervade our attempted understanding of the Resurrected Life.

When the primitive church moved the “gathering day” to Sunday it was out of the understanding and celebration of the Day of Resurrection – the day that Jesus rose from the dead. Thus, the celebration of the empty tomb was every Sunday, and never was it called “Easter” (such terminology didn’t come about in the church until the Middle [Dark] Ages). The early church taught that a true understanding of the resurrection of Christ was vital to authentic Christianity (for it is the basis for life as a Christian and the Church). In a sense, then, they gathered (figuratively) around the empty tomb every Sunday.

Not only did they gather (at least) weekly to celebrate the Day of Resurrection, but the early church acted in the community out of the resurrection life of Christ, daily. They did not simply live in remembrance of the resurrection, but their lives were powered by the living resurrection life. Remembrance defines an historical event that occurred somewhere back in the misty recesses of time. Resurrection Life empowers a living definition, spoken by the living Christ, of what it means to be a Christian and the Church, today. If the Church simply remembers (annually) the historical resurrection event then it loses touch with the present resurrection life.

Nearly 2,000 years ago Jesus Christ left the tomb empty by the power of an indestructible life. The power that raised Jesus from the dead that morning appeared again shortly thereafter on the Day of Pentecost – the day that He resurrected humanity in the form of the Church. The power of the indestructible life is not something to be fondly remembered, but something to be lived into and out of every day. The power of the empty tomb, the same power of Pentecost, is the power at the center of the life of the Church today. If Christ is resurrected, then Christ is alive. Let’s not reminisce about the resurrection, let’s live in its power.

Imagine that you have a large tree in your yard and that this large tree produces fruit, but the fruit produced is always rotten and worm infested. At first you attempt to pull down each piece of fruit one-at-a-time, but as you circle the large tree you find that the rotten and worm infested fruit multiplies quicker than you can pick it. Finally you decide that, though you love the large tree in your yard, it has to go. Rather than a large tree that continuously produces rotten and worm infested fruit in your front yard, you rent heavy equipment and yank it out of the earth roots and all, and plant a new, more beautiful tree in its place. And the new, more beautiful tree produces the perfect fruit every time. This illustration exemplifies the difference between religion and faith.

Religion, by its human design, makes of its adherents self-proclaimed fruit inspectors. It distracts the faithful by insisting that each piece of fruit must be removed, one-at-a-time until only good fruit is produced and found. It has made itself ineffectual because it misses the fact that, diseased fruit is produced because that which produces the fruit is diseased. Religion can mandate every moral/ethical code that it wishes, but regardless of the amount and veracity of the fruit inspection, regardless of the numbers and the determination of the fruit inspectors, the ability to produce good fruit is not there. To our core; down to our roots, humanity is rotten and worm infested. Perhaps the desire to produce good fruit it present (doubtful, however), we have not the nature to produce anything that can be considered “good” (let alone, “perfect”).

Faith, on the other hand, does not begin at the fruit. It begins at the roots; at the core of the human nature. Faith, in its wisdom, knows and understands that the fruit-making system is broken beyond repair. Faith desires not to become weary in addressing a single sin at a time. It has no interest in the self-defeating act of fruit fixing. It realizes that only one action will remedy the situation. It recognizes that repair is not an option. Faith reserves itself to the necessity of death in order to produce a living mechanism of perfect fruit production. The sinful and fallen human nature must be addressed if we are to change the condition of the fruit produced. Faith is that which removes the power of sin by disabling the power conductor of the fallen nature.

The same diseased roots, which produce rotten and worm infested fruit, of the large tree are at the core of religion – the fallen nature. Faith pulls the large tree out of the earth, roots and all. It replaces the large tree with a new, more beautiful tree, which produces perfect fruit every time.  Step back and look at the new and more beautiful tree that has been planted. Do you recognize this tree? It is the Cross of Christ!  The roots of this tree are faithful. In fact, they are the Faith of Christ. That very same faith that drove Him up onto His tree produces faithful fruit in us when we bear our cross; for it is the same faith that was in Christ, when God was reconciling the world to Himself – the perfect and perfectly reproducible fruit of the Tree of Life.

“When the only tool you have is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail.” – Abraham Maslow —– The church in America is in a state of decline. There are more people going out the doors (be it carried in a box, or simply in mass exodus) than there are coming in them. Likewise, the groups of people who have never been a part of the church are growing in mass while their interest in the church continues to dwindle, respectively. The answers the church attempts to give speak to questions that aren’t even being asked and that haven’t been asked in a long time. The overwhelming focus within the church is polluted by the very same thinking – irrelevant and out-of-touch self-consumption.

“The problems in the world cannot be resolved by the same kind of thinking that created them.” – Albert Einstein —– The folks that know how to play church, or at least those who are susceptible to the “church culture,” are the same 40% of the population to which the church has been catering for years. It is a long-standing maxim that local churches stand and fall according to the exchange of “members” between them. What about the other 60% of the population? Are we waiting for “them” to become like “us”? Is there some point in “their” evolution where “we” take interest in “them”? What would “church” look like if “they” were included among “us”? Incidentally, church is not “Church” without “their” inclusion with “us.”

“Religion is the opiate of the masses.” – Karl Marx —– The ideology that “church” is a building to where we go, where we are entertained by a skilled professional, where we are consumers of that which is being peddled, and where we are spectators of the sport of “Christianity” is destructive and self-defeating. It is nothing more than a religion invented by humanity. It is nothing less than an addiction to a mind-numbing drug that dulls people to their responsibilities of being “the Church,” by definition. Church is the exercising of all the gifts of God in humanity.

In short, as long as the church attempts to answer the questions begged with more-of-the-same, future growth looks bleak. It is not because God has abandoned His worldview and neither is it because Jesus has abandoned His Church. It is because, at present, the church desires to manage the business of maintaining the status-quo of accepted norms. The established system senses death and seeks only self-preservation. Thus, in its death-rattle, it scrambles to produce more “programs” in an effort to prolong its state of unconsciousness.

Until we pull the plug on our self-centered religious system (and subsequently rise from the dead in Resurrection Life) we cannot answer the real questions asked and we cannot really be the Church – the expression of Christ – in a hurting world. God’s worldview is still the rescuing of humanity from itself, and Christ’s Church is still the place where God exercises that worldview. Once the Church recovers its role as the place where God meets the needs of humanity, once it ceases to operate out of human frailty (religion) and again moves and breathes in and out of divine essence (faith), once we come to the realization that Jesus Christ Himself is life for living, then we will see the true Mission of God; we will see, not conversions of cultures to Christianity, but transformations of lives in Christ.