Paul was a missionary. He went on missionary journeys. He wrote missionary letters; letters to those who needed to understand his mission, the gospel: Jesus.
Now, what can we say about the North American Evangelical church today? Need they hear more of first-generation “Christian living” (which to later generations sounds like moralism) or second-generation “Christian living”, which might actually be more “applicable”?

What is it a missionary does? Overtly, communicate Jesus. Secondarily, covertly, intentionally or unintentionally, they communicate “Judeo-Christian values”. Paul however, saw the *lack* of Judeo-Christian values & after preaching Christ, preached a moral system to clarify what behaviors are becoming of a Christian.
Directly, abstractly, do I agree with such procedure? Sure. I’d rather have Paul preaching morality after redemption than before, and that is what he did. Were I to sit him down and ask him if he was even preaching morality, he would never even agree to such a statement.

Now, bring in the Contemporary Evangelical context. First, the every-man has much of the Judeo-Christian ethic already (relative to the Corinithians, say), so simply: why the Pauline addiction by Evangelicals?

I suppose my question and concern is simpler: What books (generally) “apply” more to the later church than the early church? Oddly enough, how about those which were written to the 2nd generation of church-goers! Hebrews-Revelation. Such a question has already been answered, and few will doubt it.

So why then is there so much emphasis on preaching Pauline lit & not enough of the General Epistles? I admit, I love the General Epistles (potentially for their novel factor), and I’ve never heard enough from them. Practically, there is more content. And I’m not going to say a moralism cannot be found in the General Epistles; moralism exists whereever you seek for it. Likewise, “Human nature is evil: we will find something anywhere to become addicted to, to build our pride through.” True, and for that, perhaps a sufficiently changing terrain of call-and-response in preaching & personal study is necessary.

So why the divide between Jesus & Paul? And more to my concern, why the Pauline unacceptance by socially minded “liberals”, as opposed to a consistent reprimand of Christians for not being sufficiently Jesus-like (by “liberals”)?

I suppose my final stance of Paul, generally, is one of “how to be a missionary in a non-Judeo-Christian ethnos (society).” A fine missionary, showing the tenacity and patience needed, and surely we all face this in “preaching” to ourselves. Yet I suppose I find him to be an extension of the book of Acts (and for good reason!) — akin to the “Books of History” (Writings) in the Old Testament (for our example) than any pure, direct. But of course, this is way too general a statement to uphold for each and every verse; more a generic background tone for the genre than the guitar-solo in the foreground.

Anyone who has read this blog knows I’m a HUGE fan of Johannine lit, and that thanks to the last class in undergrad I took which explained it for me. But in detail, John, being a good shepherd himself, attempts to teach each person to listen to God’s voice (truth) – not just in example, not in knowledge, but in experience – in a soul. “You already know, what you have already heard from the beginning..” He is always calling us to look to what we know, and dive in deeper instead of thinking you already know it, and trying to add on novelties.

Contrast this with Conservative Evangelicalism, which seems to presume Jesus & Paul going around shouting. So in the image they perceive, they fulfill and follow! However, such shouting to the masses is likely not the reality of the matter: Jesus was very discerning, even selective (Zaccheus!) & did not shout or assume all men were willing & able to listen..

John however, followed this selectiveness, speaking to those who can hear instead of forcing ears to be open, or trying to open men’s hearts and lives into conformance, only killing men in the end, creating callous hearts unable to feel or hear the shepherd’s voice, which ought to be known and heard much easier without all this violence..

Now, I understand how all this happened: mid/late modern individuals felt the truth needed defense or modernizing.. that it was an untenable position in the eyes of the masses and needed to be made ‘hearable’ to men’s ears. Sadly, with the updating of this ‘hearability’ or the truth, it weakens the hearability in one’s soul, and even those ‘ears’ were already being closed up by other anti-humane Modern traits and trends.

So what of it all? We are now in a place historically where men’s hearts are pushing against these systemic heart-closing trends, and the most of us who grew up with the half-truth are returning to its fullness once again. To avoid such troubles, what ought we expect in our lives? In our ‘small groups’, amongst our friends, towards our modern cubicle jobs?

Most of us in our 20′s are holding on to some form of identity statements. There’s a set of reactionary statements we make, pushing us from our stodgy, modern childhood & adolescence through our college brains into something called ‘life’ now. Most of us don’t have a good idea where we’re being pushed into, and most of us are ok with just being reactionary. It’s a tad healthy to ‘get away’ from all that was killing us and driving us crazy, but at the same time, it’s not very healthy to not have a solid, grounded, well-explained and considered position or two. Most of us are addicted to reactionism, since it’s just too easy, relative to being responsible & chained down or something.

So what are we to hold on to? What is “what we have heard since the beginning”? Our childhood? The politics and weird social ideologies surrounding “Jesus loves me”? How our parents are too squishy to have anything behind them? Or, our novel ideas which we would say are ‘the beginning’ to our ‘new’ lives as rational adults?

The answer to these q’s are obviously “yes and no”. There’s truth just about anywhere, and that’s the point. Modernism has taught us to learn something, learn it’s place, and them move on from it. That is “growth”. But John’s repetitive writing is obnoxiously incompatible with such a late western ideal. In all my studying of the philosophy of mind and Artificial Intelligence, there’s one thing that makes us human, and it’s not ‘choice’ like The Matrix held up. It’s our forgetfulness. Sure we can ‘learn and move on’, but life isn’t so hierarchical or ordered. We forget (oddly enough, in a logarithmic curve), and we need to be reminded, and relearn not just ‘the place’ but the places each idea influences.

For instance, we are taught to ‘love your neighbor’. (That is sufficiently ‘from the beginning’ as well!) Our first modern question is “and who is our neighbor?” We can learn through someone telling us that we are “to love everyone.” But most of us will not learn such a lesson until they fail to love everyone they meet, and learn the consequences of creating so many broken hearts in this world. This is the repetition we need, for the forgetfulness we bear, and the central point behind grace and mercy shown to another as well as us: we fail, and given enough time, we just might succeed once in awhile.

So back to our small-group. What and how are we to expect our friends to grow and learn? It’s awfully depressing to hear the same issues and concerns each week over and over again, but it’s awfully pressured to feel like we ought learn something weighty upon our hearts.

I’ve never been a fan of ‘a new topic each week’. It’s fickle, and who is doing anything more than repeating their trite identity-building resolutions/reactions anyways? Book-studies are better, and oddly enough, they are more pointed. That’s my point: perhaps ‘small groups’ ought not be focused on the people involved, the times that are compatible to meet, topics agreed upon, but each group have one central goal/theme/recurring idea. “We go to the ‘grace’ group”, or “This is the ‘wrath of God’ group”( ) that kinda sounds fun. The point is to focus our lives around a topic we believe we need to learn, and then to dive in, reminding each other each week ow that has played out in our lives for good or ill, how we forgot, how that could have been useful to survive the week, or perhaps in mildly more intellectual fashion: compare-contrast: each week is a new topic, yes, but how does some societal problem, theological point, sermon this week fail or succeed with or without mercy, or love? This way we learn the depths of God’s truth, love, mercy and wrath. Perhaps even reading a book on the topic, or reading another book off-topic to see how it is or is not shown in characters’ lives..

This all sounds so fruitful to live in the reality of  human forgetfulness instead of in the modern assumption of learn-and-move-on. Most of us will never move on from the Gospel. The love of God is not something to ‘step up from’.. Our lives are not just built on top of his grace, but each brick’s substance is his grace.

This week I’ve been doing some thinking and reading on affection and cognition.. good phenomenology stuff. In doing so, I’ve been focusing on 2 terms: expression and it’s complement, impression. Of course these terms were used in the art world 50 to 100 years ago, but I’m focusing on their value and place in the soul.

Being a quieter creature, I can have trouble with expression. Too much of it from others around me, and I’m going crazy. So impression should be easy for me then, right? To some degree, yes. But when I speak of impression, I refer to direct inputs one has in their life. So, taking an audit this morning, I asked, “Generically, what inputs do I have/allow in my life?” My first response: “very few.”

1. Listening to others: few speak other than my pastor & some in community group
2. Reading: I rarely take the time (though I’ve been trying and starting to enjoy this week)
3. Learning: This directly takes place in the trenches at work, and that is a painful version.

If Impression is a form of humility, what then is its role against (in dialectic fashion with) self? Does it mean ignorance of self? At least not placing enough time and energy on self. And what of the self’s reaction to this? Does it whine? Revolt? Fuss? Complain, “What about me?” “Well, What about you? Self, do you so need the attention of the world? You already have it of the Father & the death and life of his Son!” This is what/who I need Impression from.

Yet I’m unwilling to bow to this. This is myself demanding to push away impression, yet crying out. What is this?! Needing and receiving love is a need for impression: the expression of another unto my self. Why then have I focused on my need for the impression of love, yet pushed away the one capable & desiring to express his love to me – to fill my impressing need?

My day devalues love & the source of it, yet my self cries for it. I need and am unwilling to admit it, to label it, to accept that my need, with all that I describe it as, is precisely love.

So how to convince self? Look & find that needy part of me? Have I just not heard enough? No habit built-in of hearing.. of hearing his love? Indeed all I’m left to do is cry, “Open my ears!” I see well enough, but my ears are closed off. You’ve spoken through signs to this deaf man – let me hear the cries of others & of your love! Turn my will to accept & admit my need of love.

---

Is this management not of affection but of communication: impression & expression? It’s hard to manage theory.. So most have sold to hearing with-out hearing: daily impression of reading, fighting to hear and hear. Is this that mechanical and formal of a relationship? What other means of communication are there? Surely reading the rational form of creation, as well as the aesthetic in it and that reflection of deity within man and his role here. Such are more subjective re-readings from the original objective source.. and subjectivity is where truth, love and faith are to reside to have any value for one’s soul.

I hope I’m like everyone else, randomly assaulted by my own memory not only of choices I’ve made, but events which have happened to me which (no matter their insignificance) bring a style of fear and anxiety and self-worthlessness usually called “regret”.

I’ve heard all along (from perfectionists) that I ought live under God’s lead, so that I might live a perfect life here, as an example of God’s goodness for unbelievers; a life of no regret. Aside from the mediate teleology of that idea, I’ve got to bring out a fallacy in there. The assumption is usually that all sin = regret. While this is true in all forms, all regrets are not about sinful action on my part. I’m quite sure I could go through the Bible and my own life and find plenty of even God-directed tasks which turned up regret within the person’s life. Even more, even if I couldn’t find such a list, no one man is perfect to follow God’s leading his whole life. Furthermore, even if one did, there would be regret over being in circumstances where one was mocked (by sinful humanity) for God-directed activities, and that itself can bring regret- focusing on the God-designed power of society to build up or tear down our self worth.

Now, such regret is usually understood to put a damper on future initiative attempts. Certainly among those purporting to always be lead by God, any young fellow would have a hard time stepping forward in action unless he had strong confidence in God’s leading of him. But this is at odds with how God works. Once again, humanity’s interest and desire and rationality have undermined a life. How many of us have, for fear of fear, not initiated an action or conversation.

After this week’s sermon at Augusta’s The Well on Nehemiah 4, which brought out that we ought “build and defend” in a way to use trouble/pain to focus us rather than deter us from God’s mission, I’ve got to wonder, upon each occasion for regret and feelings of lowered self worth, there would have to be a corresponding reality which brings resolution to my fears of the past, and lightens my concern over present fears. Biblically, this resolution is always and forever 1 John 4: a return to love and it’s source. Nehemiah had a similar statement: “Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, great and awesome, and fight for your brethren, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses.” And what of the Lord? Is He not love? And is his love not shown towards us?

Not understanding something drives me up a wall. Even worse, when I’ve been told something over and over so much that I can no longer think about what something is actually communicating. Latest example? Proverbs 16.3: “Commit your works to the LORD, and your plans will be established.” Seriously, WHAT does that MEAN?

First off, it’s in parallel with the next verse, and in context with the whole chapter on intention and action.

Second, this whole idea of “committing” as an isolated act like a magic wand or a magic spell/incantation is bunk. That’s hardly Christianity, and that’s hardly helpful. So what of commitment? Isn’t it kind of like responsibility? A kind of promise? It’s certainly trust-faith.. despite what happens, I’m “committed” to do something.

Now, that kind of commitment is usually based more on a person’s pride and willpower to enact and overcome obstacles… and that kind of pride-based commitment is forbidden in the fifth verse: “The LORD abhors every arrogant person; one can be sure that they will not go unpunished.” So, in making plans, we can commit to them only if they are deemed worthy by our God, correct? That seems to make so much more sense than using God as a pure transactional Santa Claus; however, this task of getting a stamp-of-approval on our plans is of course harder than we expect.

With God being a person, who wants the best for each person (and knowing that His love is best for everyone), we now have responsibilities attached to this commitment-ing we would like. Sure, “just ask God”, but don’t play Him, He’s certainly no fool.

Any one of us can plan and “commit” to any plan, independent of any external circumstance, but to press forward despite circumstance and independent of the One-who-knows (the future) is certainly foolish, and explicitly dangerous and likely painful. And isn’t that what these verses in chapter 16 are on about? Anyone can act, but there’s consequences, and actions are to be in context and backed up by more than a single person’s pride.

So, I suppose it’s less of “commit to your plans” as popular notions request, and more of “commit to God”, who knows your plans and who has plans of His own. But still, this “commit my plans to God” is a funny grammar.

Pick the term:
1) Accurate
2) Infallible
3) Precise
4) Sufficient
5) Effective

Which one (a) do you like? (b) do you feel best represents a man’s ability to comprehend perfect Deity? (c) is most communicative within the general populus?

Now, I know these are 3 separate questions, and likely to have 3 separate list-rankings.. but I’m prone to think of them in the same way, with #2 most-popular in dogmatic minds and #1 more happily in my mind. Do they say/mean the same thing? Sure they do. So why the dogmatic need (fear.. what? no love in fear?) to “defend” terminology? This is, obviously, a matter of “official” terms vs. common-man’s thinking, but seriously, there is such a thing as a dead language.. and dead orthodoxy.. and I’m usually pro-life, and anti-death.

And since we’re on about fear, here’s mine: “I’ve heard you (Mr. Dogmatist) use the same terms as so many other people who I’ve heard use blatant fallacy and ill-logic.. so, I’m scared that you keep using the same terms.. Cuz anyone can use the terms/language, but that doesn’t mean they ‘get it’.. and I most of all want to know that you understand what life, love, truth & Jesus are all about.. and I just can’t do that unless you get creative with your vocab.”

Of course, the reply then comes: “But I don’t know you’re withing orthodoxy unless you use the proper terms.”

Is this all we have? Such an impasse of communication?

As to the importance of life and the reality of it communicating something, we might all agree. Specifically what it’s communicating, to whom, what it means, and the consequences.. that’s not so agreed upon. We understand that sin is bad, and our lives speak our theology. That’s the beginning of one of many arguments towards a holy(character of God) daily lifestyle.

But life isn’t that clean; that sin we try to avoid is undermining, active against us, confusing us, giving us a new foundation which we try to live upon.. and most sadly, it works. Life doesn’t crash-and-burn 100% when you sin. It’s a slow-way down. And the energy of youth is often enough to recover the tail-spins which can come quick. We simply learn to “not do that again.” And that’s what I’ll call “bottom-up” living: when experience teaches, and we build an idealism/expectation from it.

There’s another method, obviously “top-down”.. where we demand our idealism (from whatever source, be it parents, church/religion, youthful hopes, etc). No matter the experience, we will fight against reality to hold to our hopes. Ethics are strong, requirements high. Thanks to American Pragmatism, the latter is laughed at, and the former a stronghold of American secular living.

But my Theology says a few things.. That how I live says stuff about God. Now, for finer points, my life says stuff about God because I claim his way as my own. The “gap” question here is does everyone’s life communicate their theology? The simple answer is yes. But the other ‘gap’ question is, “Does everyone’s life communicate their perspective on God?” And the corollary, “Does everyone’s life display their commentary on God?”

Now, take the simple Christian, who is able to follow the idealism of the conservative american variety. He lives in an undisturbed box that he claims God wants him in, and he has no trouble attaining his perfection. Likely pity is his take on the rest of the sin-filled world. What is he communicating? Transcendence of and isolated God, yes. Immanence of Jesus that eats with the sinners? No. Immanance that loves and helps? No. Certainly, we can call this ‘Christianity’ a half-breed– mixed with selfish isolationism/protectionism of keeping oneself clean first AND last.

Take the avant-guard Christian.. often found on uni campuses, stuck(whether by his own choice or the housing dep’t) with a roomie who sleeps around and invites him to do the same.. Challenged on all fronts to NOT get up on sunday for fellowship, and challenged even on Sunday by people who are in the previous category, and have no concept to help him towards a holiness which is God’s. Immanence is not his trouble.. he’s IN the world, clearly. The transcendence of God’s character which he is originally designed for no longer seems reasonable, possible. The people he meets “outside the box” and still appear happy challenge.

Now, about those people he meets, out there in the world. Some who are taken by their sin and revel in it. Claim it as an identity. What are they saying about God? (1) Perhaps that they have no knowledge of his claim to holiness? Or that they have knowledge (Romans 1!) but there’s just no one ’round confirming it, encouraging them, helping them realize the goodness and long-term best. (2) Alternatively, they are unaware the connection of their daily lives to consequence.. communicating to God that they value something other than him. That’s a scary thing, and I think most people don’t realize their actions are communicating this.

Precisely.

I don’t think I’m aware of this either. I’m not convinced the church is communicating this enough; I’m not convinced that’s my message I take to those in the world.

This means that that college-roommate who’s liberal with his sexuality is directly saying God’s meaning and purpose in sexuality isn’t compelling, valuable, or of any pragmatic use. And the church is quick to jump to try and recover this message (often without the theological base, too!)But to the one who has never heard or perhaps has forgotten, his life isn’t about God, and it isn’t about communicating anything. It’s just as self-centred as the protectionist Christian, only exactly in the opposite direction. (and in this case, the protectionist christian is “better” only because he’s got 1 problem of selfishness not 2!)So selfishness of all is evident. All are indicted, no reason or cause for anything but humility. But pride fills up instead, denying consequence– precisely of God’s concern of such matters.

———-

Restart.

At this point, I’m confused. I started off this post regarding my friend who’s sin is her identity. She’s happy.. honestly happy. She’s got a life that’s working enough for her. There’s enough people confirming her actions, and there’s enough people able to keep her going. All people live by what they see and feel. Bottom-up experiential living is the norm. And that is authentic, which is often more than in the top-down lives.

But I feel I’m squished in the middle. I’ve lived both top-down (lead to such inauthenticity that lead to depression) and I’ve lived bottom-up, which can lead to frustration.

I know God’s message to me is love. That’s enough to solve the frustration of bottom-up living, get oneself out of it’s addictions and demands for peace and ease.

Perhaps that’s one of the homosexual issues. They get frustrated with the opposite sex, while being so comfortable with those who are like-minded and so retract from those who think, act, value differently instead of entering in to the messy other. Just like a married man who doesn’t know what to do with his wife or children, and so retracts into work or his hobbies or an affair where he DOES know what to do with, where he finds solace and ease. Fact is, both are sin. Both are not living fully, both are self-protectionist, and both are “happy” ..just one takes more work: fighting self and ease.

———–

Round 3:

So what of it all? Our lives are filled with our own anti-consequential desires, decisions & actions, all communicating that I’d rather live my bottom-up way than any top-down idealism keeping me from pragmatic reality. All the while, breaking God’s heart, shoving him aside, missing out on an authenticity deeper than the termites have eaten away.

Now, that’s not to say that God’s way is as the conservatives make it out to be. And that’s the confusing part for everyone involved. They present a highly in-authentic, illogical, top-down idealism which only works inside their own box of pretty-pretty-land. That’s not palatable, let alone tasty to most. And it’s not God’s design, hope nor future for any of us.

What am I to say? God’s broken heart over our denial of him is ‘ok’? Our lives communicating constant rejection of him inconsequential? Is there a difference between me trying to not reject him, and me giving up, giving in to my natural choices which speak rejection? And maybe my own effort will only build my pride.

I’ve got to say, the homosexual, the addicted-to-sports-male and the protectionist Christian are of the same tree. All act out of the same motives, though some more hidden than others. Telling God, “f*** you!” nicely doesn’t keep you in the kingdom.

All I can find that is true is continual recognition of all this and of the final payment for these crimes by God himself, and the continual attempts to value him, his ways, his kingdom.. everything else will confuse, everything else is noise.There is no “best” life. There is no one who achieves. We all rationalize and twist and turn.

Modernist Christian:

“Do this because it’s ‘the right way’ (as outlined in the Bible)”

PoMo Christian:

Listen, that thing you do- is it really getting you anywhere? I mean,  I know you’re always blaming it on ___, but doesn’t your heart ache for something more?

Let’s be clear: PoMo is about more than simple relativism. It’s deeply tied to subjectivity, and subjectivity isn’t bad. It’s only bad when it’s absolute. And so is absolute objectivity of humanity. This is life people, not a prison camp. There is such a thing as grace that allows for crazy statements like “Don’t be too religious“* and “Go in peace” to a whore.

To one who’s violently embedded, it’s tough to tell one on the other side the other’s right. Again, humility saves the day:
“Love and logic keep us clear”

Yes, Miracle Drug is an amazing song. Still.

* Amazing that we have an entire book in the Bible devoted to the concept of ‘enjoyment’(whether it’s possible) & never once references ‘prayer’!

I was thinkin’ about this randomly this morning (my brain auto-feeds itself early morning content!!) It’s the whole platonic beatific vision (intellectualism) turned monasticism turned modernism’s protectionist/priority thing.

“It’s the greatest command, so we must do it!” .. think ppl unwaveringly. Nevermind Romans 4, nevermind 1 john 4: The Father’s love in Jesus is what starts this whole thing, and what sustains this whole thing.

People, being ethically challenged by Jesus’ own words to let go of this their value system of “I’m fulfilling the greatest command by being monastic” don’t know what to make of the other options. Less “spiritual”? No, spiritual is not antithetical to physical. Modern constructions of Conservative and Liberal aren’t the end-all-be-all (praise God!).

In the end, I will not discount that we are all broken and in need of love. Rather I prioritize that need being fulfilled higher than Jesus’ command for us to love the Father. Besides, didn’t Groundhog Day, The Matrix, and Bruce Almighty teach us anything about commanded love?

Need I say more? Such a great phrase for the indulgent! (Note: gluttony as a deadly sin!) A quick review of the singular english word in the Bible will reveal it’s association with laziness and poverty.

Now, for the emotional gluttons, who have not learned emotional control, the end can be quite the same. As to a more precise definition, is it simply, “wanting what’s ‘not allowed’”, with “not allowed” as determined by God primarily, who has rulership over all this world, who sets up authorities over us, against whom we prefer to rail.

He has set up even our own souls which operate and function best within certain parameters.. one is absolute love over fear or paranoia. 1 Jn 4 so well clarifies this. But how we wish our souls were designed differently, according to our own desires, that we should not be bound by a deep sadness or unsettledness despite our actions and choices of what to desire..

So in our dream-world of wishing our own souls to be of different composition, we run from love and hope still for peace. The love of God is so very capable of bringing peace, for the one who IS love, is also peace’s prince!

Coming to grips with our own souls’ anatomy & dietary requirements can *so* be a guide unto the truth of absolute love, when we’re sick of our soul-sick hangovers from our gorging into emotional and physical delicacies..

And this is the soulish behaviour all parents wish their children to avoid. Oddly enough, they may be fully against their child ACTUALLY going about being a glutton of food, time, money and lovers, but what of the same activities going on in the soul of their child? But it is not the place for us to barge in with claw and nail into the heart of another, seeking the witch to burn, the heretic to stone. Such activities must be undertaken by the soul’s own keeper not the parent or pastor. Exterior to the self can only remain exterior, and the work of burning heretics of our hearts and amputation of mis-fed, diseased portions of our heart can only be done by the One who is internal.. So with 1 John 4:12-13 I confess, “we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit” and that Spirit is able to bring about in us love for one another, which is His love perfected in us.

So to all the gluttons out there, come to the one who, as “the friend of sinners” was himself considered a glutton(Luke 7), yet did “not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” He’s there to help, He’s sent his Spirit to help. Why wrestle yourself alone..