What is glory?

What is glory but an ecstasy, an incomprehensible event that arrives in a passing glimpse as one views the full moon while descending a swirling ravine? Too stupendous for us to stay fixed upon, our realization is that the glory remains, yet we cannot linger long before it.

Should we actually be allowed to behold glory, no longer would it be, for that which becomes comprehensible to us is no longer glory. That which is comprehensible to us becomes the corruptible, for our understanding of a thing is the same as conquering it; the things we understand, we cause to be subordinate, as now they serve us.

But glory will never serve us, any more than the ocean will serve the stream. We are under a great belonging to glory, like a molecule of water that will eventually arrive at the vast waters. But we cannot remain as we are at that conclusion without experiencing a transformation, of fresh water to salt, and here the comparison must end, because we will not remain in glory’s ocean while we dwell as mortals.

To say we know glory is a paradox, because glory is a wonder, a mystery awesome and reverent to our souls. A glimpse of glory is an intimation that the best is yet to come, even as we freely admit that we haven’t any idea what the best might be.

While we are obliged to momentarily behold glory, we still see less than the whole, for glory is actually the radiation from its source. When we look at the sun, are we seeing its combustible gases, or are we seeing the light of the flames leaping from the orb?

In the sun’s case we would not value it so much without its glory, but in glory’s true case we will always believe that something terrific exists beyond the wall of flames.

Glory has its flings with the temporal, but its thoughts are set with the eternal, so that one might peer into a small glass from one end and gaze upon the universe from the other. . . glory for us is teemingly magnified degrees of the temporal in a confident expectation of the eternal.

Look what they've done to these blues!

      A fine fellow guitarist finally stopped by the other day to share some tunes and talk. The first thing he wanted to know about was my version of "One Kind Favor" that I played awhile back on Live 95 Breakfast Jam.

      See, he'd heard the 60's folk trio 'Peter, Paul, & Mary" perform it, and then more recently B.B. King's Grammy-award winning performance of the same classic tune. . . so where did I come up with my version? And after telling him it's from a recording of the immortal Blind Lemon Jefferson, he asked where Blind Lemon picked up the tune from.

    I'm sure he meant well, but comments like this sometimes leave me mortified. If you actually listen to Blind Lemon singing and playing this tune http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX3mxjtpyBc you will readily understand that this man is most likely the originator of the song. This is circa 1928, a very infantile period in recorded music, decades previous to multi-track recording and guitar tabs on the internet; Who (I ask) would have handed this song down to him in this particular form?

    It seems to me that even if this was a traditional, Blind Lemon put his own indelible thumbprint on this tune. If the tune doesn't grab you, well, "different strokes for different folks" I say, but you show me someone  else with the type of mastery exhibited in playing those guitar licks and phrasings while singing those lines, and I'll show you a man/woman (That's right -- political correctness since 1981, friends. . .) who's done his/her homework.

   You know, this happens all the time with the blues. It's a well-known fact that the early bluesmen swapped tunes around like sports trading cards, but that's not my point here. My point is the lack of understanding about the blues and its origins by the so-called spokespeople of the genre, and the total disregard for the true originators of the music.

  Never mind Robert Johnson and all the mutations of his tunes through the years-- that's fairly well-known information. Here are a few other cases in point:

   Skip James, 'I'm So Glad' -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcaH-U4x-T0
   Cream, same title -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTZ4IYPy_cE

   I often wonder what Eric Clapton was thinking as he was stripping the gears on this marvelous impresario of guitar mastery.

   And again:

     Blind Willie Johnson, "Nobody's Fault But My Own" -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_o4omd8T5c

     Led Zeppelin, Same title -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esZ15n6_5JY

    Well, one thing you can say for The Zep -- They sure knew how to pick 'em.

     If your prefer the rockers' versions in these examples, that's your right. But to insist that you're "into the blues" by referencing Eric, the Jimmies, and Janis. . . well your history is worse than your hearing.

     I would be the first to admit that a heavy dose of the early bluesmen's music can have you wondering if you just heard the same song the track before last. These guys (sorry Ladies -- except for Elizabeth Cotton there are few female instrumentalists/composers during this era), for all their enormous talent and presence, tended to be "one trick ponies" that had only one turning for a guitar and a melodic range of about 4-5 notes.

     Furthermore, their sound is often anything but sonorous. At first you might cringe and want to stand back apiece, wondering what that was all about, but then that emotion starts splashing around again, and the next thing you know your standing on that slippery river  bank, all set to fall in.

    And that's the way it is with the blues. They never went around begging for someone to listen. They aren't ashamed to borrow, nor afraid to improvise on what they've got. They tend to humble imitators, glorify originators. They are genuine, defying our descriptions, making us suddenly wonder what the hell we're even talking about.

 

missionary or apostle?

Most of us are familiar with the term “missionary”; for one thing, it seems to have had some influence upon what position a man and woman should take in the act of procreation.
Beyond that we know that missionaries have had a tremendous impact upon the way that Western civilization has permeated the world.
How so? Obviously by carrying out their objectives of sharing the good news of the Messiah Jesus Christ, he of Jewish ethnicity and prophecy, who would be the savior of Jews and Gentiles alike.
But wait a minute; what does sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ have to do with the spread of Western civilization? Well, everything! That is, if you are a missionary.
Christianity is a religious belief system that was introduced in the East (the Middle East, to be more precise), spread phenomenally from there, and eventually became morphed into the large-scale and apostate enterprise that we see on display today. And along with the apostate church, the frequency of the term “missionary” has evolved from the tiny mustard seed of being used on just one occasion in my New Testament into a spectacular plant so large that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR CAN NEST UNDER ITS SHADE.
So what is meant in that single incidence of the Bible where the term “missionary” is used? In that case it was Paul, the author of so many of the letters featured in the New Testament. He was speaking in terms of his mission as an activist of the Christian faith.
Paul propounded on the historical Jesus Christ, he appealed to men to pray and seek Christ’s pardon and intervention in their lives, and he apparently did his utmost to spontaneously obey the promptings of the risen Christ, now revealed in the invisible yet metaphysically-revealed Holy Spirit. Paul also served as an enforcer of the pure doctrine of Christian belief, but it is my opinion that no one on this side of life really knows how pure Paul’s doctrine actually was.
Anyway, that was what Paul (who called himself a “missionary” just once in my Bible) did. We usually refer to Paul, as he himself commonly does, as an “apostle”, which is summed up mainly with the same job description that we just saw in the last paragraph. “Apostle” is much like “ambassador”, or someone who represents a ruler in that particular role or place where the ruler is not bodily present.
Most of us are familiar with “ambassador”, but “apostle” is a term we generally reserve for a senior official in a major Christian denomination, a top-ranking religious guy.
Back to the missionary/Western civilization topic, my premise (along with many others, I might add) is that the term “missionary” as a vocational career in the Christian faith is actually quite inaccurate and quite deserving of the scrutiny it receives from those outside of Christianity. Historically speaking, the missionaries, as many cultures know, were the first wave of outsiders to penetrate new frontiers, preaching and practicing logic, peace, and compassion, followed closely by a second wave of men, men of a different ilk, who subjugated and exploited the natives, many times in collusion with the most despicable and ruthless criminals of the land.
So goes the story of the advance of Western civilization, and while every civilization certainly holds its own shameful acts of belligerence and inscrutability, the West doesn’t seem to take a back seat to anybody in regards to the trade-off of benevolence for power.
So then, what’s the difference between a “missionary” and an “apostle”? I think the distinction has become important in our modern times, and therefore I propose this list that features characteristics that help identify each, and distinguish them from one other:

Primary Job Description: Missionary – Serves his organization, protects his organization’s doctrine, and seeks his organization’s approval. Apostle – Abducted by God because he sees the futility of managing his own life, he serves in submission to Christ.
Career Objectives: Missionary – Make a good name for yourself as a minister of the gospel, acquire many notches on your bible for the number of people you have had a part in getting saved, write a newsletter that makes people laugh and cry at the same time. Apostle – When God is into something, then I must be, too; who or what do I have in heaven and earth besides you, O Lord?
Career Outlook: Missionary – It’s a decent job if you have the stomach for it. Apostle – The heart of every matter is God’s will.

Mahatma Gandhi wrote: "I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians.”
The impact of a Christian’s life upon those around him depends largely upon whether he is conducting himself as a missionary or as an apostle.

When Trust is Broken

Trust is an empowering dynamic to relationships and organizations. Trusting people commit wholeheartedly to a person or a cause. Trusting people easily cast off the shackles of worry, doubt, and cynicism because they envision a secure bond or a projected outcome ahead.
Conversely, lost trust is lost power. Suspicion and doubt are as leaks from the combustion chamber, bleeding potential power to unspecified, unwarranted places.
Perhaps you have heard the adage: “double-cross me once. . . your fault; double-cross me again. . . my fault.” Only the fool allows trust to be repeatedly betrayed; only the sick-minded will make a supreme commitment to someone or something that he doesn’t entirely trust.
This is why so many of us live in the doldrums. When trust has been broken, we live in perpetual despair; as human beings we are so inclined to give our hearts away to a person or cause, and yet we harbor so many suspicions of trustworthiness. We can no longer give our hearts wholeheartedly. Life loses its savor.
If these views seem too secular, if the obvious being stated doesn’t match up with the ideal of God’s justice and sovereignty over all things, I’ll honor that. We are warned not to trust even ourselves, after all, but finally to trust God.
Since Jesus told his listeners to turn the other cheek, to walk the second mile, to give the shirt off of your back, it appears that a guarded mindset or suspicious nature clashes with the will of Christ.
Then are we really expected to continue with those who have somehow betrayed us? The answer, it appears, is “yes”. Jesus did so, and to date I have not found any convincing evidence that he later rescinded or somehow qualified this idea.
But, as this stream of thought progresses, is everything as it should be because we have placed our trust in God? I find that question a lot more difficult to answer. We are admonished to be fools for Christ, yet I would argue that the responsible person finally accepts responsibility for involvements with the unreliable person, the wolf in sheep’s clothing, or the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.
A friend once made the off-hand remark, “People are going to end up letting you down, no matter what.” Yes, no matter what; and then. . . what?
I think we have to begin with trusting God again; perhaps that was the very place where trust was first broken.
If we can get to that place of confessing and accepting “the lines have fallen to me in pleasant places” (Ps. 16), then we stand a better chance of being able to face anyone we feel has betrayed us. This is not the goal, mind you; it is only a possibility.
We still reserve the right to tell our double-crossers that their character is in question; Jesus did so, and so might we. We may also continue to keep double-crossers a ten-foot pole distance from our lives. After all we are not commanded to chum-up. We are only expected to submit our heart attitudes to the custodial care of the Holy Spirit, and if this leads us to reconciliation, so be it.
Either way lost trust is lost power. It is an enormous setback for any person or organization. Once trust is lost, it is a very slow and difficult procedure to patch or seal the leak. It may never be fully repaired. If we care at all about our lives, we would do well to maintain it.

Making Disciples

On the surface, making disciples would appear to be a simple objective; once one has opened his heart to faith and obedience, believing in his heart and confessing with his mouth that Christ is Lord, it’s only a matter of guiding this person along on their path of discipleship.
But then what will the disciple’s first step be? He will say, “Teach me.” He will want to understand scripture, and he will want to know, to borrow from Francis C. Shaeffer’s book, “How Shall We Then Live?”
Let’s not be so foolish or shallow to think that the only learning that the disciple receives is from the Bible. He will also observe (and naturally) imitate the behaviors of those believers around him whom he perceives as devoted to the faith. What does the Bible say about wine? (He will be watching to see who has a glass at weddings, before and after meals, etc.) What about entertainment? (He will be interested in the kind of movies and literature that his mentor enjoys.) What about anger? (He will see when it’s okay to be angry in righteous indignation and when it’s something that should be repented of). What about respecting others? (He will be watching to see which authorities are worthy of respect, and which are the corrupt officials and degenerates who are not worthy of Christian respect).
So you see what we have here. It doesn’t take long before we have transferred our thoughts from belief in Christ’s atonement of sin to what I would call critical thinking. The disciple is now seeking the path that his God has prepared for him, and trusting God through his sojourn in God’s kingdom.
Jesus told his first disciples to go and make disciples; as someone has pointed out, the first two letters in “gospel” are “go”. This is true in English, of course. In Aramaic, perhaps the idea wouldn’t be quite as catchy.
Do all roads lead to the same place for the Christian? No one has convinced me pro or con. I am told that no one shall snatch me away from my omnipotent Lord’s grasp, whilst at the same time I am to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. These verses belong to all Christians, but what comes of these verses is hardly consistent from one disciple to another.
Jesus’ lordship is always forefront to the disciples’ confession, to be sure. This is the litmus test of Christianity, the ‘Apostles’ Creed’, an edict of the way to believe across all Christian faith. Once we have met the approval of Christianity’s pardon, we have satisfied its unconditional requirement – one God, one faith, one baptism.
It is when this doctrine is brought to implementation that diverse ideas begin to formulate.
With Roman Catholicism, disciples have become all things to all men that by all means they might win some. This explains to me why we have shrines in Latin America, temples in India placed by Roman Catholics. In this case we have a ‘chameleon’ Christianity that blends with the dominant society, sending a message of Christ’s limitless compassion upon all of humanity.
With Pentecostals and their ‘shirt-tailer’ denominations, disciples understand that it is only a resilient, faith-overcoming-mind headset that can realize God’s kingdom come, his will be done. By grace alone will a man find salvation, but taking on God’s tasks will certainly give a boost to the realization of God's glory. Anything secularism might do, spirit-filled Christians can do bigger, better, and with spirit-filled panache’ (call it ‘anointing’, if you like).
Southern Baptists realize their sanctification by every word that proceeds from God’s mouth, their personal deeds to little effect. Bloated and constipated on a staple diet of scriptures for salvation,they see only through the prism of pre-determinism and Dispensationalist belief. They are the Lord’s, and their deeds have been relegated to the Lord. They well-know the color of the horse that the king of kings and lord of lords will be riding, and place an unrelenting trust that they cannot be beguiled. They will stand in the judgment, as is decreed, and everyone else will simply go to hell.
Then come the para-church and interdenominational faith ministries, bringing a refreshing change to the stunted doctrines of the major Christian denominations. Thriving on the best elements of all the afore-mentioned Christian doctrines, they shun traditions as they create their own, sexing up testimonies and rushing headlong for celebrity on the “cutting edge” of Christianity.
Indeed, how shall we then live? What have the disciples learned, and what has the mind of Christ brought to critical thinking?
I am only a writer, a pro-pounder with the written word; perhaps I am struggling with matters too great for me. Certainly the readers will see my fault.
If I am an agent in the great falling away, whereby men’s hearts grow cold and lawlessness abounds, it appears there is little I can do about that, according to the Southern Baptists. To the Pentecostals and the proponents of the afterglow, if I am indeed a chosen and compliant vessel, there’s a good chance that the glory of God will encompass me all about, as it did the priests at the unveiling of the new temple in Jerusalem. To the Roman Catholics, if I’m a devout soul, confessing my sins and doing penance for every known transgression, then perhaps God will have mercy upon me.
If I thrust these aside and meet God in the inter-denominational river of life, then perhaps I will inevitably go wherever it is that he leads me; perhaps I’ve already been there, and didn’t take enough notice!
If I am a disciple of Christ, however, I am right to wonder what he thinks. I am obliged to think about two roads he mentioned, obliged to recall that the narrow one is the one that I had better take. I should think about the way he reacted to the religious conventions of his country, and I should remember how vocal he was when the most obvious things about him were taken amiss. When I realize how far my mind has strayed from the way I should be thinking, I rejoice in God, because he adjures me, “Come let us reason together; though your sins are as scarlet, I will cleanse them with hyssop and make them white as snow.”

'Divisions' of ministry?

In the sixth chapter of the Book of Acts we have the account of the earliest “division of ministries” among the Christian believers; a plan is developed following a dispute among one faction of the Jews with the others, creating a situation that is simply too messy and time-consuming for the leadership of the new sect to involve themselves with a second time.
Those twelve in leadership come to this conclusion: “It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. . . But we will devote ourselves to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.”
Bad move. See for yourself. Those original twelve who “devoted themselves to prayer” remain relatively obscure in the Lord’s work from that time forward; instead, those designated to the servant position end up being the catalyst for the growth of Christianity.
Stephen is one of them. He is a reliable, confidence-winning young man, perhaps a likely candidate in future years to take a seat among The Twelve. But see what else The Bible says of this earnest but otherwise undistinguished Christian: He was “full of grace and power, performing great wonders and signs among the people.”
Of course all Stephen’s attributes only serve to get him killed, and this mainly from the urging of the greatest hell-raiser of the time, Saul the Pharisee. However it is from this particular tragedy onward that the Christians are threatened, persecuted, dispersed, and hunted. . . and as a result Christianity spreads in every direction. Within just one generation the message of the word traveled east and south as far as the tip of India, west and north to Rome and parts beyond.
What of those who remained headquartered in Jerusalem? Later we hear from some of them (Peter, James, John); by this time they are old men, steeped in wisdom and humility, urging their readers to pursue simple lives that are pleasing to God, or disclosing magnificent visions and prophecies bestowed upon them by their inestimable Lord. You don’t hear any of them advocating to anyone to “go out and start a ministry”! That is only a conception of the apostate church.
Don’t be beguiled by the holy men who have “set themselves aside” for prayer. These are a large part of the apostasy that exists in the church, both historically and in the present. Idle hands make mischief, and it is obvious that the idle nature of these “set aside” have brought strife, compromise, and corruption to religious duty. With all the extra time given them to follow their sordid pleasures, what have they got to pray about except that they don’t fall into temptation?
Apostasy in the church will continue to exist until Christ’s return, perhaps even longer. There’s not much I or anyone else can do about that. I can’t do much about it, but I don’t have to play along; show me where it says I have to play along.

conservatives don't associate with losers

The Conservatives in America don’t represent Christian values. Let’s not kid ourselves here. For one thing, Christ is way too big of a loser for the Conservatives to embrace.
Look at Christ. He didn’t own a house or a car, nor did he hold steady work, or pay into Workmen’s Comp. He wasn’t able to get any tax exemptions or unemployment insurance for himself or anybody else. All he had was a rag-tag group of followers that ditched him when he needed them the most.
Now he sits at the right hand of The Father; but what good does that do anybody while they’re trying to maintain upbeat home mortgage investments, accessible loan markets, and the opportunity for a bright future?
Conservatives want their shock and awe, their closed borders, the way of life that Christ intended for them. After all, if all Christ ended up with was a scourging and death on the cross, why shouldn’t those who believe in him get some of the rewards due him? To give up their little piece of Heaven here on Earth would surely be a travesty, and therefore every ounce of our strength should be expended to ensure that Conservatives maintain a status befitting that of the Sons of God.
For all their talk of fiscal responsibility, financial viability, etc., Conservatives were strangely silent when the home mortgage crisis hit and sent its tremors around the globe. When Conservatives had the chance to live up to their so-called lasses-faire manifesto, they grimaced and shuffled their feet just to show how much they hated to do this, but essentially said “Some of these fellers are too big to fail, and if we let ‘em, they’re gonna take everybody down with ‘em.”
Conservatives basically poise themselves at the center of the Pro-Life stance in order to manipulate their voting base and their PAC status. Beyond that they hold little respect for life or Christian doctrine.
Any redeemed-by-the-blood Conservative should be able to tell you that Christ once said that whatsoever a person asked for and believed on him, that thing he would do. I’m just curious as to what kind of prayers God is hearing these days from the Conservatives.