Back to the Shack

One day, a couple of years ago, while scrolling through a free movie weekend on HBO, I came across the movie, "The Shack." The family was asleep in bed, so I thought that this would be a fun and interesting movie to watch. I knew nothing about the movie other than it was supposed to be a Christian movie and the idea was that a man meets God in a shack. I expected something a little light-hearted and humorous that would inculcate some useful and important homily. Boy, was I mistaken!

I was not prepared for what happened. This movie was an emotional roller-coaster ride that took me places that, frankly, I didn't care to go. (Yes, I just used a cliche, but it fits so well.)

By the time I had finished this, er, movie, my theology had been, no hyperbole, shaken up. I have ever so rarely come across anything that effected me in such a manner. 

After it was over, I immediately went to Amazon and downloaded the book. Something I'd never done in response to a film before.

I've had so many discussions on-line and with people I know concerning this movie and book. (The book was pleasantly similar to the movie.) Discussions I've renewed repeatedly. I've thought about it and prayed about it and struggled over it. Why? Because, though I highly recommend it, there is something about it that didn't set quite right with me.

If, as I can't imagine, someone who hasn't seen the movie or read the book was to read my thoughts on this, it seems only fair to give fair warning. (Frankly, I cannot imagine anyone other than my immediate family even seeing this post.)

SPOILER ALERT!

Now, the things that bothered me did not necessarily include presenting God as a black woman and the Holy Ghost as an Asian woman. That was explained as, well, real, but also a vision, I suppose. Besides, I decided to treat it as metaphor and just went with it.

The thing that has really vexed me for so long, though, is what the author was trying to say about forgiveness. I understand why people claim he was pushing universal salvation. Though, I didn't really think so myself. Besides, "Papa" kept reiterating that she doesn't like slaves.

Though, a YouTube interview I saw recently with Paul Young seemed to indicate the possibility that he may actually subscribe to a form of "universalism." In short, and trying to paraphrase fairly, he said that he wouldn't be surprised if God was the kind of God who would make a way for all mankind to ultimately come to Him and share His love. 

Personally, I would think one would have to ignore a lot of verses in the Bible about Hell. That would include much preaching from our Lord. To believe that there is any possibility that all will ultimately live in the eternal bliss of Glory flies in the face of everything the Holy Scripture says about the Justice of God. And, yes, God is just!

One scripture reference here: John 3:16. Why would Christ talk about those who believe "would not perish" if, after all is said and done, none perish?

Anyway. Back to the shack!

In the end, the real, ultimate problem was that "Papa" wanted the man to forgive. Okay, but even to the point of forgiving the man who had destroyed his daughter? (Kill is not strong enough of a word.)

Now, honestly, this entire thing is very emotional for me. As a father of a daughter, or, I suppose, for a father of any child, for that matter, the idea of a man hurting my baby is more that my mind wants to ponder. Hurt me, okay. We'll deal with that. But my child? That's quite a different story.

I probably don't need to quote a bunch of Bible verses to make the point that God wants us to forgive one another. (And even ourselves.) He wants us to forgive others. Others who have hurt us. Yes, even hurt us terribly. But with no qualifications?

A year or two ago, there was a shooting at, of all things, a Texas church. Several were killed. Even the pastor's small granddaughter. It was dreadful. Horrible!

One of the most asinine reporters I've ever seen on television was asking questions of the pastor and his wife just a couple of days after the shooting. I can't remember all of his questions, but one really stood out as historically stupid. The man coldly asked, "Have your forgiven the shooter?"

The pastor feebly answered in the affirmative and the clip cut back to something else related to the story. 

Me? I only wished that that idiotic reporter could hear the things I called him!

Why, in the name of all that's holy, would he ask such a heartless question? The poor couple's granddaughter was not even in the grave yet and some jack ass is asking him about forgiveness?

I can guarantee you that if they had not been Christians, if he had not been a pastor, no one would've asked him if he had "forgiven" anyone. But since they were believers, at least with the world, it's perfectly fine to be a thoughtless cad to the recently bereaved. Sheesh!

Now, at that time, I can remember thinking, "Who said the shooter wants forgiveness?" (I can't recall, but I think he was taken alive.) Did anyone ask him if he wanted to be forgiven? Did he ask to be forgiven? Did he think he did anything wrong?

To me, it just seemed like the same old drivel I've heard time and again about "forgiveness." It's almost like the word is magical and somehow saying, "I forgive you," grants as much to whomever we consider the offender.

More later.

Back to "The Shack."

Here is a story about a man, "Mack," who lost his little girl in the worst way imaginable. And he is supposed to forgive this serial killer who doesn't think he's done anything wrong? Someone tell me how that works?

I'm not sure how much time I should spend discussing here what it means to be a reprobate. I could  ask why the Bible talks about them if there is no such thing? People seem to give the concept pretty much no thought.

More later.

I've heard story after story of people "forgiving" those who've hurt them. Those who, at least in their minds and maybe truly, have hurt them in ways that will be with them until their dying day. But, they say they've forgiven them. How?

How do you forgiven someone who thinks they've done nothing wrong. In other words, how do you grant forgiveness to the unrepentant? Can you?

I won't try to quote the number of Bible verses that explain that God's forgiveness is ready and waiting, but we must repent, admit our wrong, and ask forgiveness for the sins we've committed against Him. It's not complicated. He freely grants mercy to those who ask for it. 

What of those who don't repent? Who don't confess? Who don't, who won't, ask for forgiveness? Again, there are a lot of verses about Hell in the Bible too.

There is an almost, methinks, equally important part to this conundrum. How do we deal with the hurt, the pain, the confusion, the anguish when someone doesn't want forgiveness when they've wronged us?

Perhaps we earnestly desire to forgive them. Sometimes it's for our own desire to be relieved of the struggle of not knowing what to do. Sometimes the pain and frustration is so bad, we'll do or believe anything to relieve it. Sometimes people just fake it.

The author described the grief the family was stuck in after the disappearance of the child as the "great sadness." What an apropos name. The guilt, the shame and the loss the family endured was something to which all too many can relate. I thank God I cannot!

Firstly, bearing in mind that it's impossible for us to be unbiased and we, being human, tend to think first of ourselves and our own needs. Still, we must be sure as we can be that we are the injured party and not just suffering from our own poor choices. (This part requires much prayer and fasting.) Alas, we do tend to conflate the two.

That is one thing the author did brilliantly, he chose a hopeless scenario where there could be no doubt about who was at fault. Yes, the parents, being good parents, felt guilt for the mistakes, that they imagined, incorrectly, they made. They, no doubt, were actually, certainly the innocent, injured parties. Theirs was a hurt that they did not ask for in any way.

The awful thing the perpetrator had done had showed him as someone certainly on the road to Hell. The dichotomy between himself and the family was a clear demonstration that he was as guilty as they were innocent. He was certainly a man in need of forgiveness.

So, how do we cope when people just ain't interested in our forgiveness? They don't believe they've done wrong or they just don't care. Even with someone so lost as a sociopathic killer.

There is a question worth actually considering: What if the offender is a reprobate. Certainly, in my mind, the serial killer in the story is such. Reprobate means, simply, abandoned of God. To paraphrase that, I would  say that such people are so cold and numb to the Holy Ghost that God doesn't even trouble Himself with them. (How horrible would it be to be so depraved?)

These people would be rare, of course. Quick names like Hitler, Stalin and Mao come to mind. Still we don't have to look any farther than our own Congress to find such people. A politician who thinks it's perfectly fine to murder a defenseless baby for simple convenience and would campaign on as much betrays a diabolical lack of heart and conscience. The abortion doctor, the serial rapist and pedophile are so far in the flesh, I don't know if there is any hope for these people. 

God's mercy is deep and wide, so, occasionally, I find myself praying for them. Hope springs eternal?

We so struggle with what is often today called "closure." (I hate that term!) The word was used in the movie. 

We want to escape the pain, whoever may be at fault. So we search for any means to mollify or alleviate it. We just want it to go away. We want release. The problem is, what do we do when the pain just won't go away?

Pain is only a part of life. It is inevitable. We feel it in our tummies whenever we've missed a meal. We feel it in our bones as the years pass and we grow old and grey. We feel it in our hearts when we lose something or someone we love. Pain is just pain.

We seek our escape, but it follows us wherever we go. It's there like an old friend, or enemy, who never lets us get too far removed. It holds onto us and wakes us in the night to tell us the most unpleasant stories of days gone by. It even haunts us in our dreams. It's wherever we are. It's part of us. It just is.

We like to say we forgive those who've hurt us because we think it will give us peace. The problem is, it does not. We may live in denial, but the pain is still gnawing at us. We can't get shed of it. At least not so easily. 

Christ taught his disciples to forgive "seventy times seven." Obviously, this is not literal, but a principal. We are to be forgiving to our brother no matter how many times he hurts us.

Scripture says that, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." "Confess" being the operative word. (Yes, I did just reference a particular verse. Finally!)

The question remains: Can we forgive those who do not confess? Those who do not repent? Those who, in their own eyes, have done no wrong? Can we? 

Can God?

Entire Christian denominations are founded on the principal of what is aptly, if over-simply, called "irresistible grace." The idea is that we have no part in our salvation; we don't, can't, even choose God. He strictly and simply chooses us. We are saved because a Holy God, in His wisdom and righteousness, makes us so. We can't lose our salvation because we never claimed it. It was simply granted to us. It is irresistible.

Now, remember, Papa doesn't like slaves. ("Papa" said "prisoners." "Jesus" said "slaves." We are, in my mind, most definitely slaves if we have no choice who we love. Choices can, regrettably, be bad, but they must be ours and we must be free to make them. Otherwise, there is no such thing as free will. 

The Calvinist believes grace is irresistible. The Armenian believes, even after accepting it, grace is rejectable. Both are wrong. The former believes that we cannot love God while the latter believes God cannot love us. Love is a choice and it is everlasting or it isn't love at all. Otherwise, It's just some unpleasant thing that controls us as opposed to us controlling it.

So, again, can I forgive those who stubbornly refuse to ask? I certainly don't mean that they must come crawling to me, begging my forgiveness and that I will then condescend to grant it. No, I mean that their heart and mind must agree that they've done wrong and they must desire forgiveness with sincerity. We too must be ever ready to receive them and love them with a contrite heart and with no haughtiness or pride. We must, at the first sign, be ready to freely give the forgiveness they desperately need and we desperately need to give.

Now, can God forgive the unrepentant. The Holy Scriptures cry out, "NO!"

God's mercy is deep and wide, but if we simply refuse to drink the water, we will die of thirst. Remember the old adage about leading the horse?

Christ became our intercessor on the cross. He died that He might be the propitiation between God and man. He prayed, "Father, forgive them. They know not what they do." With that prayer to His Father, He granted forgiveness to every sinner who had ever breathed and those yet to draw breath. But what if we simply don't want His forgiveness? Is it possible to refuse the God of the Universe?

Studies by smarter men than me calculate that every time we inhale, we inhale a molecule of oxygen that Christ exhaled with His dying breath. Mind boggling! 

Imagine if a man simply refused, for whatever reason, to inhale. If he could somehow just stop breathing. He would die and that very quickly!

It's a simple and inadequate metaphor, but so many treat God's grace the same way. It's there for us to simply inhale, but pride, earthly desires, lusts, anger and a myriad of other devices lead men to hold their breaths like spoiled little toddlers until it's too late. They refuse to breath; so they die.

Hell is full of those who refused the offer of salvation. 

Yes, it's a heady thought, but we can actually refuse this great gift of mercy and forgiveness. We can refuse God's love. We can refuse His forgiveness. We can refuse to love God. Otherwise, it just wouldn't be love, would it?

If you believe you can forgive the unrepentant, aren't you saying you have power that God on His Throne does not? No Christian would say that God forgives without confession and repentance, so, why do we say we can? Why do people stubbornly hold onto the idea that we can forgive those who have unrepentantly wronged us? 

After years of prayer and study on the matter, I believe I've come up with an answer. It may not be THE answer, but if I had to say yes or no, I'd say it is. 

If you can forgive me without my confession and repentance, then it follows suit that God can do the same for you. No confession. No repentance. No change in attitude. Just forgiveness. Unrequested and irresistible. And very, very convenient!

Now, isn't that a way to live? No repentance and no remorse. Just go on with your life as you always have and God will just forgive and forgive and forgive. That, my friend, is the way to Hell!

Sure, no one who believes in one-sided forgiveness is going to agree with my assessment, but two plus two still equals four. If I don't need to repent, then neither do you. Anything else is illogical and denial of intent.

Papa encouraged Mack to repeat the words, "I forgive you," to the perpetrator, who wasn't even around to hear the words. He told him that he would have to say it many times until he could truly forgive, but that that was the way to begin. Ya know, as if the words are a mantra and, if oft repeated, will help you reach nirvana.

Papa even explains, in, I'll call it, the discovery scene, that "forgiveness doesn't create a relationship." Really? How can someone have a relationship with me when I've hurt them and won't admit it? In all fairness, the movie doesn't explain this hypothesis as well as the book. Still, though forgiveness is certainly the first step in a relationship, it is the most essential part of it. I cannot be an unforgiven child of God and neither will God force His forgiveness on me.

Words mean things. Or they mean nothing.

Forgive means forgive. Forgiveness is not about me; it's about the sinner. The offender. It's not about making me feel better; it's about granting pardon to a wrongdoer.

Forgive! Forgive freely, readily and quickly. 

Most of all, pray. Pray! And then pray some more. Maybe after enough prayer, you'll shut up and start listening. 

Then, when things make no sense and the pain just seems to continue, if you look around you'll see One on a cross beside you promising He'll be with you to the very end. 

And then...Paradise!

p.s. In writing something of this nature, the hardest part, perhaps, is looking inward. I try to sincerely ask myself if I'm only giving reasons in vain hope of begrudging forgiveness to those who've hurt me and mine. 

All I can do is pray and hope that I'm being open and honest. I'm only trying to point out that, for us lowly humans, forgiveness is difficult at best. And it needs to be the real deal!

Father God, on the other hand, is an expert at forgiveness. Of course, that's what makes Him special.

Yeah, if you think forgiveness was easy for Him, allow the Holy Ghost to remind you of just what it took to enable Him to forgive us pitiful sinners.

"You're Not Called!"

I bumped into an old friend of mine the other day. He's a really great guy! We have a long history together too. We grew up in the same town, went to school together, my brother dated his sister and he even sung at my wedding.

Randy and I, as we are both wont to do, quickly found ourselves in a religious discussion. I can't remember the specific topic, if there was one, but he being a preacher, began to give me some of his insight into preaching and the mechanics of preparing sermons. He explained that many preachers make sermon preperation hard on themselves and how they should realize that there is so much information in the Bible that they could easily spend week after week on the same chapter and/or passage.

The following story jumped into my mind. I made it a point to share a “Reader's Digest” version of it with him.

My brother, Joe, and I once went to something called a “bi-vocational conference.” The idea, I think, was to be a help seminar for men in the ministry who worked a regular job and also pastored. I, unlike my brother, was not a pastor or a preacher, but I was a music leader at the time and, besides, I think Joe wanted some company.

We attended the conference at the Sweetwater Associational Office in Madisonville. I suppose someone considered that a central location for the event.

I soon discovered I was the only layman present for the meeting. I suppose that didn't make me feel too awful uncomfortable. Being me, I just sort of went with the flow. I can't remember too much about what was said during the meeting. As I recall, though, the first half hour or so wasn't too bad. Then, sadly, things began going downhill.

The next, maybe, forty-five minutes, the men leading the conference spent their time, er, helping those present come up with simple ways to create sermon outlines. It even, I would say, descended to the point that they were having the attendees call out random books, chapters and verses with the leaders giving quick subjects and synopses for sermons off the tops of their heads.

It reminded me of when, as a teen, we would watch the “Mac Davis Show.” He always had this part of his show where he would ask the audience for random words and phrases which he would quickly turn into cute little songs. Some of them were actually quite good and they were always funny. He was a really talented guy.

Joe and I were, at this point, both becoming uneasy and irritated at the entire episode. We thought that we were there for advice and training on how to be better church leaders. We weren't looking for quick and easy ways to come up with sermons that amounted to no more than three points, a poem and a prayer. (They always forgot to include the poem, though.)

I can't recall exactly what homily there were attempting to construct, but big brother Joe had had about all he could stand. He spoke up, strongly and loudly enough for all to hear, saying, “If you can't preach that, you ain't called!”

He got a lot of looks from around the room and most smiled or nodded in agreement. I may have even heard and amen or two. Sadly, though, I fear the point was lost on all of them.

From what I can tell, at least from my own experience and observation, SBC seminaries decided some decades back, that it is less their job to teach the Holy Scriptures to their students than it is to teach them how to preach. They've apparently concluded that you can take an intelligent, glib young man, (soon they'll think woman,) and prune him into someone who can deliver three sermons a week like a factory turns out widgets. You know, mass production. Henry Ford would be proud!

In far too many churches, the pulpits are populated by men who see pastoring and preaching as more of a vocation than an avocation. It's a job just like any other job to them. You put in your hours; you put together a sermon; you deliver it on Sunday. You take your vacation every year and expect a raise likewise. You're smart; you're eloquent; you're mundane; you're also superficial.

There still remains the question: Are you called?

My dad was a preacher/pastor. (He had even been a deacon previously.) He took his calling very seriously. I would find him many nights, very, very late, sitting at the kitchen table, studying his Bible. Often, it was, I imagine, in preparation for a sermon. Still, knowing him, he did it mostly for love of God and desire to know Him better.

I recall him telling a story about another preacher we know named Jimmy. It happened on the advent of Jimmy's first sermon, Dad, in his own way, taught him a lesson I'm sure he never forgot. I laughed every time I heard the tale. I still laugh whenever I remember it.

Dad and Jimmy were sitting on the front pew and Jimmy was anxiously studying the notes he had prepared for the sermon he was about to give. Dad sat next to him for some minutes, watching him sweat. As the moment of truth was almost upon the new, young preacher, dad asked to see the man's notes. Jimmy obediently handed them to him. Dad took them, ripped them to pieces, looked Jimmy in the eye and said, “Now, go preach the Gospel!”

Jimmy was horrified, but learned a valuable lesson that day. He learned that good notes don't necessarily make for a good sermon. He learned to trust God and not his own intellect.

Dad was always prepared, studying and praying fervently. He was not above making notes, but you could never call them copious. Still, he never trusted in his own knowledge and preparation. He trusted in God! On more than one occasion, after hearing him preach one of, what I thought, was among his best sermons, he'd confess to mom and I in the car on the way home that he had no real idea what he was going to say when he got behind the pulpit. There is a certain horror in living that way that keeps a man honest, methinks.

In my mind, helping a man become a better speaker, less repetitive, more eloquent and assisting him in avoiding bad habits like, well, picking your nose in front of a congregation are all things that seminaries could do to contribute to the success of the acolytes sitting in their classrooms. Still, I can't believe it is not the job of human professors to teach men artificial, affected ways of producing canned, uninspired sermons that have no more effect than keeping the pastor in a church that supplies a regular paycheck.

I understand the desire of young men today, and yesterday, to preach. Many are glib, loquacious, talented, intelligent and truly do want to serve God. The problem is, themselves or someone else convinces them that the only way to do so is to “surrender to the call.”

Some people are pushed into the idea. They are the victims of someone else's desire to live vicariously through them. Maybe they are the eldest or only son of a deacon or other church “leader. ” Perhaps, they were pushed into the idea by someone with an ego simply trying to prove themselves right concerning a “prophecy,” or other such silliness, regarding the young man in question. Some are even coaxed by their friends or fellow wanna-be's. My dad would often refer to these poor souls as, “momma called and daddy chosen.”

Women too struggle with the “calling.” Many also love God and want to serve Him. Like men, they often see preaching as the only way to serve God. They forget the sermon the Lord preached about the eye, the ear, the foot and the hand. I guess everybody wants to be the eye.

In my family, what with so many preachers and deacons populating our ranks, it was inevitable that I too would struggle with the Lord's calling in my life. I suppose I was called to preach by everybody but God Himself. Fortunately, I suppose, I was never convinced that it was actually the Lord seeking that path for my life. (That's for another blog though.) Furthermore, I had sense enough to know that God needs well-versed, studious laymen too.

I've known plenty of men who started preaching at a very early age. (Some, perhaps, not so early.) They seemed to have a real desire to serve God, but to me, and it seems to my Dad also, that something was just out of place with so many of them. He would sometimes say of these somewhat deluded men that they spent so many years trying to preach and yearning to preach that, as he would put it, “The Lord just finally called him.”

It seems to me, and I think the Scriptures will back me up, that if God calls you, he'll provide you with the message. He didn't say, don't study, don't prepare and don't pray. He said it would come from him and not from our own selves. I like to think it's like owning a gun. You load it and God will tell who you how to shoot...and what to shoot.

I fear the problem boils down to fear. There is fear for so many preachers in merely trusting the Lord. They don't want to face a single Sunday not knowing exactly what they are going to say. They can't just yield their voices to the Holy Ghost believing that He will fill them till they overflow into the congregation seated before them. No, when it really comes down to it, they, like so many of their parishioners, can't seem to find a way to let go and simply let themselves fall into the Hands of God!

Letting go? Falling into the hands of God? I can think of worse things!

Here Comes the Bride!

There is, sad to say, much confusion these days, as there has been for, well, probably the last century at least, concerning Biblical ecclesiology. Especially in my lifetime, the past fifty plus years, it has only waxed worse. Even the SBC itself has become embroiled in this bewilderment, spurned on by Fundamentalists who have persistently increased their stranglehold on a denomination that once believed in not only the security of the believer, but also the priesthood of the believer.

So much of the confusion has come from a basic misunderstanding of who we are. If you don’t know who you are, nothing else can fit into place. Like my dad used to say to me, “Remember whose child you are.”


Not saying whether they are right or wrong, but I have heard many, many stories of adopted children, upon reaching adulthood, setting out to find their natural parents. I too have spent much time researching my family’s genealogy. The desire to know where we came from seems to be an innate characteristic of human kind.


Ergo, there has been much confusion about even our very relationship to God. Furthermore, much confusion about our relationship to our Savior. (Not that the two are different, although they are, but that’s another blog.)


Fundamentalists avoid the term “Bride” like the plague! (Name rather than term.) Preferring to use the word “church” almost exclusively. “Church” has become, even at that, interchangeable with “religion.” (Thank you Thomas Jefferson!) “Church” has been applied to everything from Hinduism, Muslimism, Christianity and even the “Church of Satan.”


Now, what could be worse than that? Only one thing I can think of. The misuse, brought on by the misunderstanding, of the word “church” by the very ones who once claimed to be the very “Church of Christ.” (Remember Missionary Baptists?) Many, sadly, especially, specifically, Baptists, have forgotten what the word “church” means. Baptists not only stand guilty of misinterpretation, but of propagating this repugnant misnomer.


Furthermore, any scholar can tell you the Greek word ecclesia is the precise word from which we get “church.” They’ll further explain that the very word means “congregation.” Strangely, many will go on to say that it means both “universal” and “local” seeing no contradiction whatsoever in their polar opposite uses of the word. Now, at best, we may only have a shadow of the mystery of Christ’s Church, but even a poor mathematician like myself knows one plus one equals two.


Much of the confusion seems to come, of course, from our own prejudices, but also from the fact that we ignore what the Bible itself says about the matter. As one preacher I know said, “The Bible is its own best dictionary.” Much of our, (by “our,” I mean, “their,”) misunderstanding comes from clinging to what we were taught by mom & dad, our church or what we learned in our initial walk with God. (Somehow, we think we got it right on the first try.) We cling to our prejudices and preconceptions like a dog bothering a bone!


Peradventure, we walked into a wedding ceremony. Wouldn’t it be easy enough to spot the bride and groom? Aren’t they the ones, holding hands, making promises and standing before the minister? Aren’t they the ones all dressed up as if they are getting married? If we’re unsure, can’t we ask a friend to identify them for us?


Rev 21:9…Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.


The problem for many is, they have their own ideas about the wedding couple and, even when the Scriptures explicitly identify them, they argue, “Oh, no, that’s not them! They don’t look like I was taught to believe they should look.” Even though a mutual friend may point out the two, we still can’t see them when we have our eyes closed.


How can you know the Bride if you don’t even recognize the Groom? How can you know the Groom if you don’t even recognize the Bride? It’s a conundrum! (Though it should not be.)
So, what does the Holy Bible say about who the Bride is? To begin, let’s ask who the Groom is.


Matthew 9:15
And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.


It seems apparent, probably no Christian would argue, that Christ is the Groom. “Christianity 101.” Doesn’t seem complicated.


To continue, if there is a Groom, is He married? (Should be simple, but, oddly enough, some disagreement here.) Yes, but what does the Scripture say?


Romans 7:4
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.


Mysteriously, the Scripture says we are “married” to Him and each other. Not to oversimplify, but if we recognize the Church is one body, to me that illuminates this apparent ambiguity. (I love oxymorons!)


To continue, who is the Bride? “Who” being the operative word here, as opposed to “what.” This is where things always seem to get sticky!


Revelation 21:
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
If I told you of the beauty of my bride and said, she was as clear as sunshine and tall like the trees and fresh as a cool mountain spring, would you think her to be a forest? If I introduced her to you, would you see only the description and not the person? What if I had a friend introduce you to her? Would that help?


Shamefully, Fundamentalists, et al., have stubbornly interpreted, professed and proclaimed that the very city in the book of Revelation is an actual, literal city. It matters not one iota to them that the angel actually calls this the “Lamb’s wife.” They cling with a death grip to their teaching that this is some literal city that will one day miraculously drop on top of Jerusalem. To what purpose, I cannot say. I can only imagine they have some twisted desire to sit and gloat over the millions of souls going to Hell around them for a thousand years. Sheesh!


How many times have we used the “streets of gold” and “gates of pearl” as descriptions of Heaven? It pains me to say it, but I have fallen into that trap myself.


So much of the analysis of Scripture can be argued and it is possible to have two different viewpoints on the same scripture and both interpretations be correct. (Remember, if it’s not wrong, it’s right.) Still, some Scripture is painfully obvious and self-defining. At least it is to those with open eyes and open minds.


The best rationalization for why Fundamentalists cling to this interpretation is one given by a particular preacher I know. (I have quoted him on many occasions.) He said, “It’s a Jim Dandy way to sell books about end time prophecy!”


Matthew 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.


Genesis 2:24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


Scholars, (guys with books for sale,) credit Moses with Genesis 2:24, saying he inserted it to teach God’s lesson about marriage. Still, if you believe the Bible, you’d be sore pressed to say this statement was incorrect whatever the reason for its insertion at this point. Even our Lord quoted this Scripture in the Gospel. When a man and a woman marry, they become “one flesh”…one body.
Eve was made from Adam’s rib. She became his helpmeet. His mate. Eve came from him. She was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. Today, when a man and woman become “one flesh,” the offspring of that relationship is truly, literally, the two becoming one flesh!


John, et al., teach us that the Body of Christ is the Church. He taught that we are even Her children. (Mysterious, is it not?)


2 John 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth


He taught us that it is Christ who sanctifies the Church and cleanses Her. He presents Her to Himself, a chaste, pure Bride. This is something she is incapable of doing Herself. He chose Her. She is His Elect!


Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.


More than one someone has asked if the Bible should be taken literally or metaphorically. One brilliant response given was that it should be taken seriously. Much of what the Holy Scriptures has to say, we try to moralize, allegorize, literalize or seek some other way of dealing with the puzzles that it has to offer us. Often, more than we can sometimes easily admit, it speaks plainly.


Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.


As surely as He is our Head, we are His Body. Christ had a body while He walked this earth. His body was filled with the Holy Ghost. He was resurrected and raised to Heaven. He left a Body behind, filled with the Holy Ghost, to do His work, greater works than He, works that He could no longer do. His Body is still “of His flesh, and of His bones.”


Ephesians 5:30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.


That Body is resurrected, married, filled with the Holy Ghost and pregnant with the life thereof! The Church of God, the Bride of Christ, is not a harlot who produces offspring with a Man to whom She is not married! She is no mere concubine, brought in for a one night stand, with no rights, privileges or rank and no Covenant with her Spouse. To quote my late Uncle Ulis, “If there has been no marriage ceremony, we are all bastards!”


Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.


Ben Franklin said, “You are what you read.” He has been paraphrased, and I think accurately, “You are what you eat.” Now, this would be consistent with the Holy Scripture’s teaching on what the Church eats and drinks. Someone else said, “Garbage in; garbage out.” We would well remember that, as Christians, what we take in is makes us what we are.


When we consume that “living bread,” we consume that which is not only healthy for us spiritually, but that which makes us part of Him. It becomes part of our DNA; part of our blood.


John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


I Corinthians 10:17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.


We who take of the “Lord’s body” worthily, do so to our own health. If we do it in order, in His authority and that of His Bride, we become “one flesh” with Him and with His Congregation. Then, those who are of His will, shall be “added to the Church.”


Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.


I Corinthians 11 is some of the most preached out of context Scripture in the Bible. It is normally treated as if Paul is merely meandering from subject to subject. These verses are generally treated as a suite, but should be treated as a segue.


I don’t mean to defame the Apostle’s name, but he and I do have one thing in common. We both often go around the barn to make a point, but we are definitely trying to make a point.


Paul spent this entire chapter discussing order in the family and order in the Church of God. The scripture contained therein referring to the Lord’s Supper is one of the favorites used by many pastors when having a Communion Service. In my opinion, which is what this blog is all about, it would behoove them to both read and preach this entire chapter or avoid it entirely. They certainly shouldn’t pull those few verses out that refer the “Lord's supper” and use them as nothing more than a club with which to bludgeon their congregation.


Our pastors tell their congregants to “examine themselves.” The listeners flee the pew and fill the alter. They then return to their pews, proudly believing, “Yeah, I’m alright with God now.” The truth of the matter is, they can’t make it back to their seats without sin creeping back into their hearts!
Fundamentalist pastors specialize in filling their parishioners with guilt and shame and fear. After all, we’re Baptists. Isn’t that what we do?


I Corinthians 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body


What of those who partake “unworthily“? A word about that: There have always been those who come to the Lord’s table, not for the Lord, but for what is on His table. Like a cat, rushing to its food bowl, never looking up to see from whence the food comes, but only burying its face selfishly in its meal.


They know not the Lord of Hosts! These are cowans and usurpers! Their desire is only to steal the birthright of the Children of Light! Those pretenders who care not for the Lord of the feast, but only for the feast. What is food to the Church of God is poison to all others. What is sustenance for the Bride is detriment to those unbidden.


Neither the King nor the Queen has invited them and, yes, therefore, they drink and eat “unworthily.” Only those summoned by the Bride and the Bridegroom are welcome at His table. One might even say, R.S.V.P.!


Is my table so different from my Lord’s? I don’t allow just anyone to walk through my door and sit at my table with my family. Do you?


No, not all are welcome at the Table of our Lord. Yet, the Children of His Bride are not only welcome, but also commanded to be present and partake. He did not merely suggest it; He expects it.
When my drill sergeant told me that whenever I do a particular thing, whatever that thing may have been, I should do it a certain way, he was expecting me to do as much. I knew an order when I heard one.


1 Corinthians 11:25
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me


“As oft as ye drink it…” A recommendation? A good idea? A proffering? It seems to me that when the Lord said these words, He expected us to do as much. In my mind, if the Lord expects something, that qualifies as a command.


He does not want His commands to be disregarded. He does not want Himself to be forgotten!
Of course, this begs the question: Do crackers and juice the Lord’s Supper make? In other words, is the presence of the furnishings of Communion and the performance of the ceremony all that is required of us? Most would say obviously not, but how many would still insist that the old, rotten, stinky, dried up, cold, lifeless, stale, habitual ceremony their church goes through, is somehow pleasing to God?


Isaiah 1:11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.


Churches go through this performance, thinking they are doing big business and supposing they are doing exactly what God wants. They do it in a haphazard way with no real thought or attention to the implements they use or the ritual itself. They do it on the cheap! Many even sink so low as to buy those musty prepackaged crackers and the cheapest grape juice they can find. After all, does it really matter? Isn’t it the thought that counts? As my father was fond of saying, “If any way will do, then no way will do just as well.”


If you stop and ponder, you may realize that on any given Sunday when this service is exercised in your church, the reason is simply because it is written into the church bylaws. Can you think of many things more repugnant than going through the motions of this precious ordinance of the Church of Christ than doing it simply because it is ON THE SCHEDULE!


Where is the love? Where is the passion? Where is the romance?


1 Samuel 15:22
And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.


I’m reminded of when Abraham and Isaac went to make sacrifice in the mountains of Moriah. We all know the story how Isaac, unbeknownst to him, was to be the sacrifice. At one point, he looked around himself, taking note of all that they had brought with them. He then said to his father, in so many words, “Father, we have everything for the sacrifice, but the sacrifice.”


Genesis 22:7 And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?


Sadly, we go through the motions and have all the implements of the Lord’s Supper, and, for that matter, worship in general, but we never ask ourselves, “Where is the sacrifice?” We do the things we think we’re supposed to do, but where is the offering? Where is the sacrifice? Frankly, there is only one sacrifice that will suffice. Something, or someone, has to die!


I imagine we will continue to argue and debate within and without concerning this matter, but it is His blood and His body and He gives it to whomever He chooses. All are invited, but not all are welcome!