Creation is our Domain, not humanity, time or Deity

“Scratch any of us and you will find we are witch doctors underneath.”

- Dr. Paul Hiebert.


The temptation for man is to control that which we are to submit to, cooperate with, regenerate, mentor and love.

We have the responsibility,

1. to have authority over Creation in order to steward Creation,
2. to cooperate with, mutually submit to, regenerate, mentor and love humanity,
3. to cooperate with and submit to time and
4. to submit to, cooperate with, give worship to and love the Trinity.

This is the order of how worship towards God is to be ordered. We worship Him based upon responsibility, authority, submission, love and cooperation.

Fearful manipulation, bitter jealousy, selfish ambition and hateful anger are the destroyers of this order.

Cain and Abel experienced this dynamic - the first murder was a result of the above list.

The first rebellion was acted out in the context of sinlessness, yet with self-deceit. Our role today knows no such context. Our context knows only sin and selfishness therefore, to sin is natural and to do so requires that we accept that our starting point with worship, responsibility, submission, love, authority and cooperation is to do the exact opposite. Therefore ordering our worship to God according to these categories will allow the alignment of our holistically rebellious hearts back towards what is true, life-giving and founded in Eden though oriented towards the New Creation.

under the sun

Some say there is nothing new under the sun,

New
Anew
Renew.

How do we deal with the semantics/meanings of these words if there is nothing new. Wouldn't that cause these words to be rendered meaningless. Or is it that whatever is "new" can only be new to my senses, from my situatedness, from my perspective in its inherent limited spector.

I have to believe that the word "new" has a rendering that cannot be contained or exhausted by our intuition, knowledge, educational investments, experience, etc... Nothing is new to God as we understand him, but our ability to apprehend knowledge and awareness of what is true or real will never be exhausted - which requires that our experience of truth has to be new - some of it granted will have been discovered by others long before us but there has to be some room for things that have never been discovered before by human beings - this can be historically substantiated over and over.

For me the approach needs to come through three terms that use the root of "new" in English. This is not an exhaustive explanation conceptually and the limitations of English are always present but here goes...

New - of recent origin, production, purchase, etc.; having but lately come or been brought into being: We use this term to speak of brand new, unusual, fresh or recent aspects of description.

Anew - in a new form or manner: This is where things, ideas, experiences, explanations, etc... are re-discovered in a given context that had not previously had the aspect spoken of in the current context. We can then re-discover anew in a way that brings a new awareness.

Renew - to be restored to a former state; become new or as if new again: this term best represents the process of things becoming new. As there are very few brand new and completely fresh ideas or sources of knowledge, most of our understanding that is new is really a renewed understanding of things that already exist. Many times our new discoveries depend upon the conceptual framework that already exists in our hearts, minds and actions. We discover new things through what we already understand and know generally. Those things may have already been discovered, but there has to be somethings that are unique and new apart from discoveries that are already present in the up-to-date general human consciousness. This can point to the assurance that to God - nothing is new under sun from his perspective but to us, many things will be new under the sun and some of them will be brand new but not necessarily independently new from our former frameworks.

Newness is life - Mercy is new every morning - there is new life - new things will be done and the things of old will be forgotten.

There are many things new under the sun.

proportional empowerment and dis-empowerment

I believe there is a direct proportion of dis-empowerment from the clergy to the empowerment of the laity in churches and faith communities these days. The opposite is also true it seems. It would seem that this is why Christ displayed a model that made him as equal to those he was discipling as was divinely possible. This doesn't mean that he was trying to exact himself in human form so as to keep his divinity undetected. It is more that he was unassuming in his "leadership" ability and didn't extend himself on his own account other than through miracles and his declared relationship to the Father. He had no problem displaying obvious authority over the elements (walking on water, stilling the storm), angels (fallen or not), the law (Sabbath), the body and sickness (healings and raising from the dead) and over himself (self control, sinlessness). In doing so he modeled for us the authority that he was to pass on to us. We have that authority, though imperfectly and not as fully expressed as he did, but nonetheless, the design is that we would carry the same authority throughout Creation according to our relationship with him over his creation as stewards and co-creators and members of his redemption team.

He could have become a Scribe with his knowledge of the Law and he could have become famous with his ability to heal and do miracles of all sorts but he hid that. What is interesting is that he was consistently intentional about withholding his divine attributes in order to be fully human - not fully human in the way that we are fully human but fully human in the way that we are to become fully human. The potential to be fully human is present within us but can only be unleashed and fully expressed in a living relationship with Christ. The fullness of that expression can then only be experienced in the new creation - but that which is necessarily possible within us is also essentially us now in our identity (positional justification/already not yet).

One can track with this line of thinking by accepting that Christ's life is just as important as his death and resurrection because in it, that is his life - redemption was also present. Not necessarily redemption that he accomplished through the cross, but the redemption principles that we would learn from his life and then carry into our life - the life and action of his body, the church. This would be our modus operandi as his community until he would return.










He was constantly giving away power, prestige and opportunities to be praised. He either gave them to his disciples, to his Father or he would tell the onlookers to not speak a word of what he had done. In our time, he has given them to the church. So as the life of Christ, as 100% human, is the model that we are called to live under, we then have the ability and potential for everything that he accomplished except for substitutionary atonement.

One question is, is it possible for human beings to calm a storm? Was Christ doing that to nature or was he rebuking an invisible enemy. Some believe it is possible that he was actually rebuking the enemy who was causing the storm, otherwise a rebuke wouldn't have been needed. In other circumstances where natural phenomena occurs in a supernatural way, there is no need for a rebuke. A rebuke is language generally reserved for the enemy of our souls not for nature. It is obvious in the text that the disciples thought he was addressing nature in his remark but the facts remain and it is still possible that he was addressing evil spirits who were also able to cause the conditions that they were in.

Either way, the idea that Christ gave away power through his example and the way in which he discipled, lived, taught, healed, etc... is seemingly strong. His efforts were to "em-power" the disciples. As we see with Christ and the Pharisees, the message given by Christ of the New Covenant arriving and his identity as the Messiah who had brought it, was definitely not welcome. The disciples already doubted their purpose, ability and place in Jewish society as it pertained to their backgrounds (Christ never chose a Pharisee, Saducee or Essene to join him - only misfits, socially uneducated and unacceptable, non-conformists, outcasts and compromisers). It would follow that they would struggle to also embrace their God given identity as heralds of "the" New Covenant and the message of "the" Messiah who had come and gone. Not an easy task in their environment and historical setting. His constant affirmation of them from the first time he chose them to the final commission he gave them at his ascension and every affirmation in-between shows how intentional he was about always giving away power and purpose, affirmation and authority - even to those who seemed least likely to manage it well. But over time they got it and became 12 of the most unstoppable characters in the history of the church.

Therefore through Christ's example and life we can say that, "there is a direct proportion of dis-empowerment from the clergy to the empowerment of the laity in churches and faith communities in the establishment and growth of those communities and the church as a whole universal. There is also a proportionate movement of empowerment of the clergy with a resulting dis-empowerment of the laity in the opposite direction that is also true."










Christ's example was not only through humility in the washing of the disciples' feet but also in power and authority in the elevation of their apostolic identity and purpose in spreading the "gospel" globally, regionally and locally. If the responsibility in the Great Commission is as pervasive as it is reported to be in Matthew 28, then the authority to accomplish that great commission has to match the responsibility and any good parent, leader, manager or trainer will tell you and also model for you that responsibility and authority are better caught rather than just taught. Ultimately, to do what Christ commissioned us to do requires a continual affirmation and em-powerment of regular people being equipped and empowered to accomplish irregular tasks - tasks that even Christ said would be greater than his.

Get Rich or Die Tryin'?

Lately I've been learning a lesson - to sow peace is wise because over the long haul, it reaps a harvest of righteousness which seems to be the fruit of what we know as a redemptive heritage that builds the Kingdom over time.

I really like to see results from my visions, dreams and actions sooner that they are designed to be achieved. By pushing forward with selfish ambition because of jealousy and envy that leads to impatience, I forego the plan of God for my life and for the way that my life is to minister and serve the lives I'm connected to directly or indirectly. The way we live is designed to outlast our actual life. That "way" can either be redemptive, creative, life-giving and beautiful or it can be destructive, utilitarian, impatient and life-diminishing.

If I constantly keep in my heart and head and hands the practice of sowing peace in all my situations of life, easy, difficult or indifferent, I will over time see a harvest of shalom and fullness. This will have to cost me something and at times things and valued treasures that are dear to me, but the outcome will be worth it all. In one sense then, the concept of living our lives based on results can actually be good if those results are not according to our terms, time-frame or quantitative/qualitative controls. If we were to live for results that outlived us that gave life, brought light to darkness, truth to deception and redemption to hopelessness, then it would be ethical to live according to the results. The paremeters for measuring those results obviously would be much different than our current culture tells us. The interesting thing is that many times, the culture shaping corpus's that we look to and are fed by - the media, strong personalities, itching ear teachers, economic systems of control and wealth, religious platforms, political ideals and the like - many times their intentions and preached messages are actually redemptive but their hearts and the methods, structures and lived ethics that they actually employ don't match up. I am the same in my personal life.

I want what's best for my family, me and the people that God has given me to care for and be cared for by but there is a disconnect between what I do each day and what I "think" and "say" to establish my sense of ethical responsibility and an ensuing lifestyle to match.

James says, "...And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."

In the Message, it says it like this, "You can develop a healthy, robust community that lives right with God and enjoy its results only if you do the hard work of getting along withe each other, treating each other with dignity and honor."

I have learned that in spite of my desire to want what's right, I try to achieve it combatively at times when an attitude of patience and peace-making is a better path. My personality doesn't shy away from conflict and at times looks for it to solve problems. This can be good when stuff needs to come to the surface that has been simmering below the surface for too long but many things that simmmer just need to have the burner shut off. That is not natural to my consciousness and I have seen that no matter what the issue is - large or small, that i tend to be ready to resolve most problems head on in full force, when many issues are better left alone. Sowing peace in my life looks a lot like avoiding the first punch at a problem and seeking the shalom of a community rather than being the first one in line to critique, condemn, catalyze the issue or conflate an issue pasts its necessary limits. I'm very judicial at times and as a result have little room for grace and patience.

The flip side is that there are some who do everything they can to avoid conflict and brush issues under the carpet or have many simmering pots full of issues that have rarely been dealt with which makes for a lot of simmering pots and a lot of collective heat, ready to be let off at an untimely place and in an untimely manner.

I guess both types of people struggle to sow peace. My type wants to deal directly and scare up the issue asap - to "nip it in the bud" as they say whereas the other side doesn't nip anything in the bud and weeds begin to take over the life of the garden. Either way, both approaches do not seek to sow peace. Sometimes peace being sown means letting an issue go and giving grace while at other times it means letting an issue come to the surface and facing it with courage. These are difficult patterns of community life and probably the most difficult over time. Though in time, James tells us that if we continually (not perfectly) sow peace, then a harvest of right relationships and many other right things will result.

There's always space for some weeds in the garden yet, if there are two many weeds then it is no longer a garden.




Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

"The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'

" 'An enemy did this,' he replied.
"The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'

" 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' " (Matt. 13:24-30)


This parable doesn't seem to line up exactly with what I'm learning yet the characteristics of taking on a problem that has come up seem to be very similar with the conclusion that James was writing with in his third chapter.

James notes,

"Real wisdom, God's wisdom, begins with a holy life and is characterized by getting along with others. It is gentle and reasonable, overflowing with mercy and blessings, not hot one day and cold the next, not two-faced. You can develop a healthy, robust community that lives right with God and enjoy its results only if you do the hard work of getting along with each other, treating each other with dignity and honor."

So it looks like we always come back to wisdom. Wisdom seems to always say something more and deeper and beyond our first thoughts and feelings in most situations. I know that I'm not afraid of conflict and conflict resolution but the path that I "viscerally" or "naturally" take to get there many times works against the very resolution that I'm seeking. It's more painful to wait, listen seek the path of wisdom in dealing with conflict which may or may not require what one feels or sense first. Whatever I feel, think or sense is the right thing to do, I have begun to ask myself two questions,

"Am I sowing seeds of peace?"

"What would wisdom do?"

I like asking what would wisdom do instead of what Jesus would do? I find it difficult to critique my own sense of ethics and whether I'm able to be true to the truth when I'm asking what Jesus would do. Many, including myself, find it easier to cast Jesus in our own image and refer to the aspects of his actions and personality that fit with our actions and personalities - we then can easily ask - WWJD?

I barely know the guy and yet I've been with him for years. Not knowing him well enough and the frustration with not knowing what he would actually do in a given situation drives me to an impatient appraisal of who I think he is. I then speak of him doing what I would really do - and I can do all of this without even thinking about it. Then I parade Jesus' name and reputation around to other people to show them why I'm right and ethical in my actions.

WWJD is designed to hurt us and discomfort us (though at times it can comfort) more than to confirm our imposed personal ethics or to allay our fears of being wrong. So I find it more realistic and safer to ask, what would wisdom do. This doesn't circumvent Christ but allows us to see him in the context of wisdom, as he is our wisdom from God according to Scripture. I think we can all freely admit we need a lot of growth in wisdom. If Christ is our wisdom then he retains the ability to lead us to wisdom and to embody wisdom and its implications for difficult decisions. In this we do not look past Christ to Wisdom but look to wisdom as a paradigm through which Christ lived ethically and obediently to the Father.

Consistently asking these questions and then doing the hard work of listening to the answers and not just asking the questions, has a promise - a harvest of right relationships and a bunch of other... right things.

-Nathan Smith (inspiration from humiliation)