“Why did you choose to be a part of a denomination?” is a question that I’m often asked. “Some man began it and you shouldn’t follow the man.” My replies are several: First, the ideology that one should not “follow the man” is unbiblical, unintelligible, and ignorant (of history). The primitive church had leaders in Christ, and it was (technically) pre-denominational. Many claim, today, to simply be “Christian” and, therefore, non-denominational; but the differing theological doctrines of the many make each a different denomination by definition (and different still than the primitive church). While I understand the sentiment that “the man” has attempted to pervert this movement called “Christianity,” according to the logic of not “following the man” because of his perversion, it would necessarily follow to separate from the human race because of its perversion (which, in and of itself, is perverted logic).

Because some think I am an “anti-traditionalist” they question why I’m a United Methodist pastor. First, I am not anti-traditional. I have traditions. If anyone knows anything about Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD, or CDO – in alphabetical order as it should be), they know that those who think this way need the order of traditions (routines). As for the traditions of the “church culture,” they are not my traditions and, thus, I do not practice them. Some traditions of the church (and denomination) others enjoy, so I partake for the historicity, and the enjoyment of others, and not for myself. As for being a United Methodist pastor, I’ll say that of all Christianity, the United Methodists align best with my own theology, and that God has opened doors for me to cast the Vision in the denomination and beyond (You’ll have to do something with that).

Since the original apostles, the church has followed “a man.” It is no coincidence that God took the form of “a man” in order to rescue humanity. How many times does the Apostle Paul say, “Mimic me, for I mimic Christ”? What is the point of “leaders” if there isn’t supposed to be “followers?” And why has the Spirit equipped leaders (Eph. 4:11-12) if one is not to follow another with the gift(s)? All of Scripture is written by men and inspired by God. To believe that God wrote the Scriptures, absent of human means, is absurd. If the human agent played no role, why not simply have one gospel account? Likewise, Paul’s letters are the majority of the New Testament, and he wrote some of them out of his own understanding of God’s worldview to differing local churches (1Cor. 7:12). Why couldn’t God have made many different expressions of Himself through different “denominations” that speak to the differences in humanity? Because there are different denominations does not mean that there isn’t still one Body. Could not Paul’s “differing parts of the Body” refer also to denominations?

Logically speaking, hasn’t the notion of “not following the man” become traditional? Non-denominationalism has become a denomination in and of its-self (and launched locally by a “man”). If you have decided to be non-denominational, fine. But do not make the mistake of irrationally (and arrogantly) claiming a monopoly on God and His movement. The issue at hand is not denominations, but the fallen nature of the human beings that fill them. One can argue the mob mentality of a group of humans, but one cannot rationally argue that it is because they are formed into a denomination that they are a mob. Likewise, the ills against humanity that have been committed by humanity cannot be blamed on denominations. The atheist argues that Christians and the church as a whole are the culprits who committed the horrors of the past. But it was a mob of humanity that should have known better, it was not because they were the church or because they were Christians (or the original “denomination”).

Do not misunderstand, I did not decide one day to be an agitator stirring the proverbial pot of stagnate thought and rancid understandings. Long ago I did not draw the conclusion that, when I grow up, I want to aggravate and agitate the church (or whomever I happen to be irritating at the time). Hey! As long as I could be married, I would easily conform to the life of a monk. If it were up to me I would mind my own business; after all, I only want to be left alone to imagine God and speculate upon His logic. I could socially respond to humanity via the Internet; I could interact via email and text messages. But alas, what I am in my flesh does not align with what I am called to be in spirit.

I was a part of two distinct groups last week, each polarized from the other not only in experience, but also outcome. The First: Four days of separation and seclusion with a dozen others in a “church setting.” Cloaked in the appearance of the divine, the experience reeked of the putrefaction of the flesh. I do not claim to speak for the others present nor do I wish to project my experience onto others, I desire only to share my point of view (with the previous paragraph as a qualifier for it). If it were up to me, I would have simply kept my mouth shut, nodded in agreement, and rode out the four days relatively unscathed. But no! In the Form of the Crucifixion, my flesh is subdued and what I am called to be in the spirit is enlivened. Of all the parts of the Body God could have made me… I am the butt. Aggravation and agitation are gifts in the hands of God (I reckon!). The facilitator of the week exclaimed (AT me) at one point: “I have never before experienced push-back like this!” I will not divulge the gory details of the explosive atmosphere, but to pose a series of questions that I beg: Why do I have to think like you? Why does a “Christian” have to look, smell, walk, and talk, etc. like you? Why does “Christianity” look so conveniently like a particular culture? Who has decided that you, particularly, set the tone for what Christ is doing? How many people are alienated by your “Us vs. Them; the Church vs. the World” mentality? Again, it was not my flesh in this fight, this war, for my flesh would have rode off into the sunset without a second thought. I left the event physically, mentally, and spiritually exhausted. I have warred behind enemy lines before, but this was like entering the battle through the mouth of the religious beast.

The second group: Three days of immersion and inclusion with a half-dozen brothers (when I say “brothers” I mean bikers, though they are my brothers in Christ as well). We were in “the world” (as the former group saw it) at the Annual Outer Banks Bike Week. We “fellowshipped” and “worshipped,” had “accountability” and held one another “responsible” for one-self and to the group, and we “expressed Christ” to a hurting world (both verbally and in actions). We built up one another and helped one another, and we built up and helped others who were not a part of our “group.” At one point we had a local woman (on a bicycle) approach us and express how glad she was that we were there and wished us well. As far as I know I was not the butt of the Body, here. Though I might have been, it wasn’t out of calling as before. I left this event physically tired (in a good, hard work kind-of way), but mentally and spiritually revived. My line of questioning, and subsequent answers are as follows: Why can’t the church be this way? Oh! It is, just not the religious kind. Why does Christianity have to be a single culture? Oh! It doesn’t! It is simply religion that self-imposes its culture. Why does it have to be an “Us vs. Them” proposition? Oh! It doesn’t! Church is both, so-called “secular” and so-called “sacred.” Why do Christians have to think, look, smell, walk, and talk, etc. the same? Oh! It is only the religious normative that has dictated the accepted ethos, pushing The Faith to the margins and pushing others out-of-doors. I have discovered that, when faced with religion, my flesh is crucified and my spiritual calling is to be the butt in the life of the Resurrected Body of Christ. But when I am among the marginalized, my flesh is crucified and my calling is to express the love of the Resurrected Body of Christ. I guess, in light of my last experience, I’m glad I’m not a monk; unless it were some kind of biker order!

It often appears that I have a different definition of “faith,” and the role it plays in Christianity, than many others (within or without the church) today. “Faith,” biblically speaking, is derived from the Greek, pistis – “being persuaded, convinced; belief.” It is concerning confidence or trust. Faith is normally considered something of religion. Logically, faith is an intellectual assent to certain truth statements. What I would add to and insist on concerning this definition is that there is no such thing as a so-called “leap of faith” or “blind faith.” By definition, faith is not something that is an irrational leap, nor is it blind; for how does one become persuaded and believe if there is no evidence to convince that one? Strictly speaking, if one leaps or follows blindly, then that one is operating out of something other than faith. Such a one could easily be religious, but void of any faith, in fact.

The role I understand faith to play in Christianity is one that is thoroughly effective. Faith has to do with believing on Jesus Christ generally, but on His death and resurrection specifically. One can simply “believe” in the life of the historical Jesus (which, in fact, does not concern faith), but a faith in the resurrection, and the resurrection life of that Christ carries with it a power beyond a simple religious belief. It is the faith OF Christ – the very same faith that drove Him to the cross; that nailed Him to His cross – made available to humanity in the Resurrection Life of Christ.

The Resurrection Life of Christ is imputed (or imparted) in humanity when it believes out of Christ’s own faith in God’s worldview. The fact of resurrection life is that faith belongs to Christ, wholly and completely. Thus the works of faith were completed by the faith of Christ on His cross, and are worked out in us by the faith of Christ in His Resurrection Life. In other words, Christ performed exactly the works necessary on His cross (exemplified by His resurrection) and our resurrection is not dependent on the works which we can add to His, but as a result of His faithfulness and the works which He performs in us when we believe out of (His) faith.

What I have expressed here is the Vision of “faith” according to Pauline Theology (the Apostle Paul). I challenge us to study these references as “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Rom 10:17). Acts 20:21; 26:18 Romans 1:5, 8, 12, 17; 3:3, 22-31; 4:5-20; 5:1-2; 9:32; 10:6, 8, 17; 11:20; 12:3, 6; 14:1, 22-23 1Corinthains 2:5; 12:9; 13:2, 13; 15:14-17; 16:13 2Corinthains 1:24; 4:13; 5:7; 8:7; 10:15; 13:5 Galatians 1:23; 2:16, 20; 3:2-14, 22-26; 5:5-6, 22; 6:10 Ephesians 2:8; 3:12, 17; 4:5, 13; 6:16, 23 Philippians 1:25, 27; 2:17; 3:9 Colossians 1:4, 23; 2:5, 7, 12, 20-23 1Thessalonains 1:3-4, 8, 11; 2:13; 3:2, 5-7, 10; 5:8 1Timothy 1:2, 4-5, 14, 19; 2:7, 15; 3:9, 13; 4:12; 5:8, 12; 6:11-12, 20-21 2Timothy 1:5, 13; 2:18, 22; 3:10, 15; 4:7 Titus 1:1, 4, 13; 2:2, 10; 4:7 Philemon 5-6 Hebrews 4:2; 6:1, 12; 10:22, 38; 11:13; 12:2; 13:7.

Contrary to popular belief God does not wish to destroy disbelievers (Jn. 3:16-17; 1Tim. 2:4). The judgment of God (and, for that matter, the mercy of God) is not subject to whether or not a person is “in church” or without (Jam. 1:22, 25). God does not frown on a “bad person” and smile on a “good person” (Matt. 5:45). The fact that most teaching on this subject is anthropos-centric (human-centered) is precisely the point of the issue. Two major reasons for so much confusion in understanding the human/God relationship can be squarely blamed on bad theology and a poor thought process. It is not humanity which finds itself at the brunt of God’s holiness, it is sin. While God’s mercy is anthropos-centric (human centered) God’s judgment is hamartia-centric (sin-centered).

Think with me, now: Hamartia (sin) is, literally, “to miss the mark.” Sin is humanity missing the mark of God’s worldview for it. Christ came, in human form, though without sin (2Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1Pet. 2:22; 1Jn 4:5). It cannot be humanity that is in the cross-hairs of judgment, or else God in the form of Jesus Christ could not have come in the likeness of humanity (Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2:7). Why didn’t Jesus remove humanity itself, rather than the sins of humanity, on His cross if this were some punishment for human beings (Heb. 9:26)? It is sin that has been destroyed, and it is sin to which we are no longer enslaved (Jn. 1:29; Rom. 6:6, 11, 14). Humanity presents itself to sin (Rom. 6:13). Humanity is under the power of sin (Rom. 3:9). It is the knowledge of sin that condemns humanity (Rom. 3:20). Sin is that which misidentifies humanity (Rom. 6:22; 7:13). Sin becomes an identity to humanity (Rom. 6:17; 7:17, 20).

The “believer” has identified with the fact that his/her sin (and its punishment) was transferred to Christ on the cross. The “unbeliever” (by definition), however, has not (Rom. 6:23). Likewise, Christ’s own right-standing-with-God has been transferred to humanity, which the “believer” acknowledges (Rom. 5:19; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38; 11:4), but the “unbeliever” does not (1Pet. 3:12) and that one stands connected and identified to something alien – sin. The unbeliever alienates him/herself from God because God cannot associate or be associated with alienating sin. Thus, it is because of humanity being identified by and identifiable with sin that one is the beneficiary of separation from God. Humanity can be identified with and identifiable to Christ by believing on the Christ of the cross and, thereby, escaping the separation because of sin.

God is not judging humanity, though He judged sin at the Cross of Christ. The coming of Christ is Good News. It is a rescuing of humanity to safety and, as such, cannot be at the same time “bad news” (judgment). Humanity was already separated from God (bad news), so Christ came (Good News). God is not judging, for He judged His Son. He dipped Christ in the judgment of separation. Humanity is a casualty of the judging of sin, or the recipient of the forgiveness of it.

So, we have had yet another year of “Easter” celebrations. We have had our sunrise services, breakfast included. We have had our Easter egg hunts for the children, complete with covered dish lunches for the family. We have stood in the dark, early Sunday morning and rehearsed and remembered that morning in the misty recesses of time – nearly 2,000 years ago – when the disciples discovered that the tomb was empty. “He is risen!” is the cry, with the reply, “He is risen indeed!” But with all due respect, with all reverence, the question is begged, “So what?”

If this annual remembrance is the extent of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth for the church, then how is Christianity any different than any other religion which celebrates the birth, life, death, and/or resurrection (or reincarnation) of its founder? If the reality of His resurrection, for us, is dependent on our rehearsal of a yearly play (as it were), then we do not, in fact, have a faith other than our own and from within ourselves. In order for the church to have existed this long – in good times and bad – there must be more involved than the pure willpower of human beings and their religious inconsistencies.

I tell you that, it is not simply a retelling of the story of the resurrection of Christ, but the actual life of the Resurrected Christ that empowers His church today! If it is true that Jesus was resurrected all those years ago (and it is), then it necessarily follows that I do not have to remember the fact annually but it is a reality lived out in my life daily; the Resurrected Christ lives and breathes in us today, 2,000 years later. While the life of Christ was a beautiful thing and, in spite of the horror, the death of Christ was even more splendid because of His resurrection and our forgiveness and reconciliation, Jesus does not repetitiously live His past life over and over again in each of us, but He picks up where He left off in all of us; He continues living the lifestyle of the Resurrected Christ in us – the Church, by definition.

The early church celebrated the life of the resurrected Christ every single resurrection day – Sunday (the Day of Resurrection). The Apostle Paul insisted that he “died daily,” which speaks to a daily activity inviting the life of the Resurrected Christ to live within him. If simply a remembrance, then powerless; its point is centered on my own ability to remember. If only a rehearsal, then pointless, its power is based on my own ability to act out my part in the story.

To what end did Christ defy the laws of nature and rise from the dead if I am still dependent on my own powerless frailties? What did He mean when He said that the Spirit of God, Himself, would live life in us, if we are still self-reliant? Why did He say that He would be with us until the end of the age, only to leave us to our own religious attempts to conjure Him? If He is alive, then we are not powerless! If He is living Resurrection Life in us, then we are not religiously self-dependent! And if all this is true (and it is), then He is present with us and there is no need to treat Him as if He is a character-hero in an ancient story from the misty recesses of time!

My favorite quote of Mark Twain is, “The deity, nor his son, is a Christian.” If Jesus is not a “Christian,” is “Christianity,” then, simply just another religion with futile attempts to reach God? I mean, I know that those who follow Christ are, historically, called Christians (though, that title was not originally a positive notion). Yet, I also know that the title “Christian” has taken on a life of its own, ironically, (at best) separate from Christ and (at worst) something other than having anything to do with Him.

Make no mistake, religion is not faith. When Christianity compares itself with other religions, logically then, it has placed itself in the same category as the others. The question is begged: What, then, makes Christianity better than those in the same religious category? My argument (in a round-about way) is, if Christianity is a religion, then it is no better (or better-off) than any other religion which attempts to please or otherwise contact God. It must be more than a religion; otherwise we have failed to enter into Christ, but are still trying to find Him. I, for one, am not interested in any religion; including Christianity, if it is only and simply a religion.

The ancient church fathers saw religion as a means by which humanity attempts to reach upward to God. Thus, any religion has the potential to lead one to Christ, but one needs the faith of Christ to reach God. Judaism, with its Laws, was instituted by God to lead Israel to Christ (if you please). Irenaeus (A.D. 115-202) taught that “all the prophets of old spoke concerning ‘our Christ.’” In ancient Greece, the religion was philosophy. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215) argues, “Philosophy was given to the Greeks as the Law was given to the Jews” and “philosophy is a schoolmaster to the Greeks as the Law is to the Jews.” The rationale is that any and every religion is instituted to lead one to Christ. Once Christ has come and we have received His rescue and safety, we are in no need of that which led us to Him (Galatians Chapters 3 and 4).

While this seems an argument of semantics (or possibly, etymology), words (and, therefore, names and titles) are important. If a religion, then, Christianity hasn’t yet reached Christ. But if a faith, where God Himself moved within humanity (rather than humanity attempting to reach God), then it finds itself squarely in the heart of God, without a need of comparison to any religion. If there is no need for comparison, then, there is no threat from any religion. We are no longer in Christendom, where Christianity ensured its survival by stomping out competing religions. We are in a new era – a new paradigm – where we as Christians are like the primitive church – secure in our identity of belonging to Christ. If Christianity is a faith, then Christ is its life-source (rather than its goal); if its life-source, then, Christ is God; and if God, then He will ensure its survival as His expression on earth. We are to simply be the vessels of transport.

In the English translation of the Scriptures we find the English word “love” throughout. What we lose in English, however, is the meaning, which is dependent on the Greek word used. Where the English language has the one word, “love,” the Greek has many different words to express the several meanings intended. The word translated as “love” in the English is actually Greek words like philadelphia and phileo, and agape and agapao. And each of these has many different meanings, translated as “love” in the English, deriving from its root word.

Sometimes, like in Romans 12:10, the word “love” is the Greek word philadelphia, which is the brotherly love of Christians for one another out of a common spiritual life. In 1 Peter 3:8, the Greek word is philadelphos, which can be used as a love that distinguishes a Christian from other people. In Titus 2:4 the Greek word is philandros, which is to have affection for someone (for example, a husband or wife). However, in Titus 3:4 the Greek word is philanthropia, which is a type of human friendship where good will is the characteristic; it is a social love for the well-being of humanity. In 1 Timothy 6:10 the Greek word is philarguria, which is how we understand one who is a “lover of money.” And the Greek word phileo is translated as “love” in Matthew 6:5, which simply speaks of one who has a common interest with another.

Each of the words above is produced by human beings, where each has something in common with the other. In other words, this kind of love is conditional. Its condition is that we love those with whom we have something in common, even if that commonality is humanity. Then we have the Greek word agape (Matthew 5:43), a word not found in the classical Greek, but only the biblical. It is a love where the one who loves does so, not because it is desired by the one loved, but because it is deemed necessary by the one who loves (John 3:16). Characteristically it is an unconditional love by nature. It requires and expects nothing in return, and it sets not a single qualifier or condition (by definition). As such, this love is produced only by God, for only God has such an unselfish love. Epistemologically, God is the author and source of this love (2Cor. 13:11), the Holy Spirit is the lover of this love in humanity (Rom. 15:30), and such love of the Father Christ alone makes available to us (Rom. 5:5, 8).

We also have a similar word that is often used and translated “love,” that Greek word is agapao (Matt. 5:44). This is an interesting word in itself because it speaks of a volitional directing of the will toward someone. It is God’s unconditional love in action (Eph. 2:4) and it is our loving as we are loved by God. Now, in order for humanity to logically love God (by definition of God), He has called and equipped us to love one another as an expression of our love for Him. The idea that we can directly love God, strictly speaking, is based on an improbability (if not an impossibility). So, God has us love each other with His unconditional love, as an indirect way (if you please) of loving Him. Thus, when we love one another (agapao), it is not because we have something in common (phileo), but because God loves (agape) us.

We can conditionally love one another, especially when expecting something (like love) in return. But it takes a special and higher love to love another without condition or expecting anything in return. That love can only come from God and can never be produced nor reproduced by us. It is God’s love loving one through the other because God is love in and through us.

I must make something clear; something that is clearly missing in the church’s understanding (or misunderstanding, rather) concerning the “not-churched” (un-churched or de-churched, or etc.). There is one major reason why people are not in church. In most cases it is not because people have an issue with God. Likewise, in most cases, it is not because people have an issue with Jesus Christ. It is the fact that, in most cases, people have issues with the church, itself, in general. I mean that in two different ways:

Where Church (by definition) calls us to function as community, because God is community, we have become individualistic and seek only what is best for “me.” By nature, we are tribal. We like only to be around our own kind – those who act, walk, talk, and smell, etc. like we do. We have lost all inkling of what it means to live as the “Body” of Christ, with differing parts by design. Being the nature of humanity, the church has come to reflect human degradation, rather than reflecting He who instituted it. If the church is simply a reflection of the brokenness of humanity, what does it offer that is any different than what anyone anywhere else has to offer? The church claims its benefit is Christ, but the not-churched see no evidence of this benefit. For, they are simply looking into a broken mirror and the reflection confirms the fractures, with no hope of healing.

Historically, Church became a culture of its own where, to become “Christian,” meant converting from one culture to a competing culture (the “correct” culture). “If you do things like us” (notice the alienation and exasperated division) “things would be better in your life.” The church said, “You need Jesus” and then proceeded to define exactly what “Christianity” means according to its own image rather than Christ’s. Writing its own tablets of stone, the church established accepted norms (according to its own “authorized” interpretation), to which one must convert to be “Christian” or that one is hereby rejected (by the church and, thus, by God – or so it was assumed).

So, we have two issues working simultaneously: First, humanity has become individualistic, as opposed to communal and; secondly, the church (as a rule) no longer reflects the oneness of God but, rather, splintered humanity collectively sharing in the misery of sameness. God’s worldview is for humanity to express the community of God (which He holds in Himself), of which He has invited us to be a part. This necessitates the church as the expression of God’s grace – Jesus Christ – on earth. It is uncomfortable, in the sense that most of the people aren’t like “me.” It is ugly, in the sense that cross-cultured humanity lives in and out of community. It means that, if there is a need in the community then God is supplying for that need through humanity as Church. This means that church is not something we do “to” or “for” someone, but “with” someone. It is not a matter of what “I” get out of it, but how God is moving in community. Church is defined by its expression of Christ. God has not made of all people one culture. He has made of all cultures one community – Church. Now, what does THAT look like?!

I had previously posted this entry back in July of 2012, but thought it appropriate to post it again. Dante Poole and I are co-authoring a book by the same title (due out summer of 2013).

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}

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!

We give because we need. We need because we are a part of the community. There are needs in the community. God meets those needs by means of His Church. We don’t give so that we can get. We give to meet the needs of the community. When the needs of the community are met our needs are met. We are a part of the community. This is not “tithing.” This is the Faith Principle. This principle speaks of who God is and that God can be believed because of who God is. We are partners in the New Testament Church, giving and receiving according to God. We give out of what we have (not what we don’t) because what we have comes from God, first. It is about living in and out of community. It is about a community that lives by its faith.

Yet, how can we talk about “faith” when we qualify the conversation with “tithing,” which is an initial action on our part before a blessing on God’s part? “Faith” and “tithing” are two different principles. Tithing is a principle based on obligation. Faith is a principle based on grace. When we must (first) tithe in order to (secondly) receive a benefit, then we are not talking about faith but obligation. If we are tithing in order to receive a benefit (especially from God), then we are not “giving” in accordance with faith but Law.

Tithing is a principle of a different covenant than faith. The principle of tithing is a product of God’s Old Covenant with Israel where He states, “If you do this, then I will do that.” If we pay our tithe, then God will benefit us. But the principle of faith is a product of God’s covenant in Christ where He states, “This is what I am doing, period.” Faith says: God is of benefit. And we receive the benefit when we agree with what God is doing. We do not move first to oblige the benefit, but God initiates the benefit and we align with God in that benefit – the Faith Principle.

Our “giving” is not a tithe, because we would then demand and expect a benefit; but it is our action according to faith, where it is simply what God is doing and we agree and align with that fact. If it is a tithe, and the benefit is dependent on our first move, then we are earning the benefit by our own action and God is obliged to benefit us. But, if God has initiated the benefit, then it is an action based in faith, in which we align and agree with God. Our “giving” is not out of obligation and because we expect a return, but out of faith according to God’s Vision.

God is not going to benefit us because we tithe. God IS benefiting us, so we agree and align with that truth by giving out of what God has given to us. If we do not give, then God doesn’t quit being a benefit but we eventually remove ourselves from the benefits for our own lack of Vision. “Faith” and “tithing” are categorically and fundamentally incompatible. We either live by faith or obligation, but never can we live according to both.