Degrees of Intimacy

There is much misinformation and many mixed signals when it comes to the subject (and/or object) of love. Specifically within Christian circles, with the Love Commands in particular, we become entangled in confusion, myth, and down-right perversion. But what we either ignore or (more probably) what we are completely ignorant of are the Degrees of Intimacy. When we do not understand the variables of human emotion and divine grace (and reason) in the context of love, we confound the proper, healthy relations in which we are called (and equipped) to live.

There are three major degrees of intimacy: Unconditional Love; Sexual Love and; Brotherly Love. Unconditional love is purely logical; it originates in God as a pure essence of God. God has no other form of love, but logical. God does not have the emotional expressions of “sex love” or “brotherly love.” Humans can have perfect (unconditional) love, but only in a proper relationship with God. And we are wrought with sexual and brotherly love precisely because of our humanity.

[Incidentally, we could also speak of our confusion over “love” and “lust.” Lust is the perversion of love; in fact, it’s the polar-opposite. Love gives, while lust takes. Love owes nothing and is owed nothing, while lust feels entitled to a perceived debt. The confusion is steeped in dysfunctional emotions.]

So, for example, in marriage: When one has an affair or is “no longer in ‘love’” with his/her spouse or is “in ‘love’ with another”, it is usually not based in “love” but pure emotion (though not necessarily sex). If that is true, then, it is not logical to have an affair or to utilize these excuses. Unconditional love, being based in logic and sound reason, dictates that one doesn’t have an affair because emotions are irrelevant when pertaining to “love.” However, emotions are directly linked to the degrees of intimacy in the two forms of “Erotic Love” and “Brotherly Love.” These are where we get our wires crossed. We often confuse erotic and brotherly love, thereby, crossing the boundaries of degrees. There is an old myth, based on Freudian Psychology, which states that two people of opposite genders cannot be friends (not for long, anyway). The truth is that here is where the two emotional “loves” become confused. The degrees of intimacy become unclear because the boundaries of “brotherly love” and “erotic love” become blurred.

As such, then, God’s unconditional love (and, therefore, that unconditional love in us for others) is pure logic with sound reason as a boundary. Where “erotic love” and “brotherly love” are complexities of emotions with the boundaries easily blurred because of the emotional links themselves. We can have an improper and unbalanced combination of the three degrees of intimacy, where love based in and governed by logic is replaced by love based on feelings – (either real or perceived) needs, wants; victimization; entitlement, and etc. The perversion comes when “love” is not clearly distinguished and we attempt to blur the lines of the degrees of intimacy in our personal relationships.

Therefore, logic (the basis for unconditional love) dictates that we are to have sexual love for one (but not necessarily any), brotherly love for many, and Perfect Love for all.

A Bridge that Crosses Boundaries

By some estimates over half of the population of America is completely and directly unaffected by the church (this percentage is difficult to concretize simply because the actual numbers are expanding rapidly). It is less than 50% of the population to which all Church marketing, advertizing, and recruiting are directed and geared. In essence, most local churches and denominations (including ‘non-denominational’ denominations) are only swapping members – stealing, really – while most of the people are left to the indirect, ever-shifting whims of popular opinion and politics, and the vacillating foreign religions of mystery Babylon (otherwise known as “outreach”).

Obsessed with self-preservation and memories of “the glory days of Christendom” the church has become an institution of crippling fear that finds its focal point in the past; where it perceives is the secret to eternal life. It is increasingly anxious about any kind of change (or anything different). It has built impassible and immovable boundaries to protect itself at key intersections to guard against any threat to its status and the status-quo.

But God…Rather than building fortresses; instead of erecting monuments to self-centered survival, the church is called to be a bridge that crosses boundaries. It has been saturated in fearlessness; risk-taking, no-holds-barred, passionate, extravagant love for humanity. Demanding that each day is always a building block that leans forward and gazes into the future, we insist that eternal life is always before us and never behind. The church is called not to compel compulsory productivity, but to activate effectual faith that lies dormant in the heart of all humanity.

The answer is not found in some marketing and advertizing attempt to reach over 50% of the population of the United States who cares not to be institutionalized; rather, it is for the church to be caught up in a movement instituted by its Founder. A movement where the church truly is the expression of Christ; where Jesus Christ is the central motivator of the action, which expands out and is ever expanding the borders; where there is no superficial boundary of secular and sacred, but all life is the point and purpose of Christ; where the church is “sent” by Christ and not simply inviting others to “come and see.” A movement where the Christ of the church is alive and living in the minds and lives of the living; always activating life, accentuating love, and exploding faith in the people who come in contact with Him and His church. 

Don’t tell me that certain things in a certain order in a certain way must occur for the church to survive. Jesus Christ is alive. And, thus, so is His church. If we will only be consumed by Him and His interests, and cease and desist in our own self-seeking interests, the church will thrive.

Freedom?

Freedom… Much is made of this idea, and especially recently. Legally it is the state of being at liberty rather than confined to restraints. Personally (both physically and mentally) it speaks of liberty as opposed to bondage and slavery. Socially it can have to do with the freedom from any external controls to speak one’s mind or freedom from external control in one’s actions. Politically it speaks of civil liberties that are opposed to despot dictators or governments. Yet, today, an all-encompassing popular definition for freedom could be that “we are free to do whatever we want or see fit.” But if that were true, wouldn’t our freedom infringe at some point on another’s? The United States, arguably the freest country in the world, is a country of laws designed to protect freedom (originally). If a country of laws, then how is it free according to the popular definition? And if freedom is to be “lawless,” how is it really freedom?

When we speak of freedom without a context it always, in reality, concerns our own sake. Like anything else the idea of freedom can be manipulated and perverted. The proper context for freedom is not found in the idea of lawless, but “without law.” Against freedom there is no just law which can ever find it guilty or limited. This context, though rarely mentioned, is the original intent for the idea of freedom. Freedom, first and foremost, is a benefit of grace (for without grace, generally speaking, there is no such thing as freedom). The source of freedom and, therefore, the idea of freedom is from the mind of God; the benefactor of grace.

Biblically, the idea of freedom is to be without religious regulations or restrictions of the Law; it is to be without the Law of Sin and Death; it is without the present Law of Corruption. Never do we find freedom as a license to serve our own selfish desires. In fact, manipulating and perverting freedom to be an excuse to do “whatever we want or see fit” is to again be accused by the Law; it is to again become subject to the Law of Sin and Death; it is the self-expression of the Law of Corruption. Do not confuse rebellion with freedom.

Logically, if freedom is the ability to do “whatever I want or see fit,” then the necessary conclusion is the eventual robbery of another’s freedom. Lawlessness is not a respecter of others and, therefore, is not in fact the state of being free; but, in all actuality, is only slavery to the desires and passions of the self; while attempting to force said freedom of the one onto all others. However, if freedom is the state of being without law, then it is bound by no necessary law (there are no just laws withstanding freedom); it respects all others, and is limitless in its scope and intentions for others. Freedom is not free. It entails sacrifice and suffering.

Religion of Politics

At the time of this writing North Carolinians are heading to their respective voting stations. Among the offices and positions on the ballots is a (perceived or actual) controversial amendment. If you do not know what I’m talking about, we need to have a different conversation. If you are aware of your surroundings, however, and what is going on in the world of religion as politics, I do not wish to change your political affiliation (evident by the fact that this is being posted the day after the primary), but only hope to conduce thought.

Concerning the officials: Do not be fooled by the (self-contradicting) laws of politics; for example, the law which states that a politician is subject to change his/her opinion dependant on to whom he/she is speaking. Or the law which insists that hypocrisy is always found in what my opponents say and do. Ironically, the laws of politics demand that there are no absolutes; save for those to which my opponents must adhere. A key variable in these laws of politics is based on the degree in which the voters – the public at large – are ignorant; not only concerning the facts of the matter, but also concerning the definition of ignorance (i.e. uninformed) itself.

As is the case concerning religion, when we are ignorant of the laws of politics at least two things result: First, we (the people) are but numbers to be manipulated by differing math formulas and equations in the hopes of ultimate control of the populous by the institution and, secondly, we (the people) believe or disbelieve everything we hear based on who (what party, race, religion, etc.) is speaking. Like the old psychoanalysis which explained that we were all abused in our childhood but simply suppressed the memory, we become self-induced victims because we allow someone or something else to think for us. There is an old adage which states, “If we are ignorant of history we are destined to repeat it.” Worse yet, I think, is the fact that, if we are ignorant of history, then someone can come along and re-write it.

There are deeper issues involved with Amendment One than the overly simplistic notion that this is about homosexuals. Emotions are not logical and, therefore, do not result from a thought process (but, rather, the lack thereof). Do not be fooled by hyper-emotionalism because it does not necessitate thought. The “Christian” argument is ridiculous simply because we have differing interpretations of the Scriptures, and (obviously) differ on to what degree the Cross of Christ is effectual. [Incidentally, the phrase “the Bible says…” is an insufficient and manipulative argument because it is your interpretation of what the Bible says.] Do not be fooled by (so-called) “Christian Ethics/Morals” because they are inconsistent and conveniently selective. While it is true that we cannot legislate morality (forcing what is “right” by making illegal what is “wrong”), it is also a fact that we cannot make “truth” relative. Do not confuse opinion with fact, and proof with conjecture. And “Freedom” does not mean I can do anything I want.

Do not be fooled, regardless of where you stand politically; despite your opinion on Amendment One, God stands on neither side. God is neither “Republican nor Democrat” (and neither is God “Independent,” but only in the absolute theological sense). God does not side with “pro” agendas of any kind (simply because they are in fact self-serving agendas). God does not favor, in spite of reports to the contrary, any separation of humanity what-so-ever. The fact that we have before us Amendment One, and the fact that “politics” is excused from common decency (not to mention the Laws of Logic), proves only the depths of depravity and alienation in which humanity lives, and nothing else. Vote with your conscious and voice your opinion, but know what they are first, and know that they are precisely that – yours.

Categorically Cultural

From the perspective of Vision Casting, humanity can be (roughly) categorized into three cultures: The Churched Culture, the Un-Churched Culture, and the De-Churched Culture. Each culture can be further divided into sub-cultures and counter-cultures of a given category (such as race, tastes in music, and lifestyles, etc). Much of the attention, both positively and negatively speaking, has been centered on the Churched Culture; frankly, because it is the established culture of western civilization (especially in America). The Un-Churched Culture seems to always be the instigator of change. But it is the De-Churched Culture that is usually an over-looked, if not forgotten, category. Living among the un-churched the de-churched remember life as the Churched.

For better or for worse, regardless: By definition, then, the Churched are those that make up the establishment and have historically been the story tellers concerning it; the Un-Churched are those who have never been a part of the establishment and have no story to tell concerning it; and the De-Churched are those who have a memory of the establishment, but ultimately have no positive stories to tell concerning it.

Here is where most people confuse the categories.

The Churched has attempted to set the norms for society; the Un-Churched has never been a part of those norms (or that society) and, therefore, are unaffected by (and often ignorant of) such perceived norms and; the De-Churched feel victimized and alienated by these norms and, thus, the rejected (perceived or otherwise) become those who reject the norms.

As a rule (there are exceptions, which make it a rule), most of your atheists actually belong to the De-Churched Culture. Most of the Un-Churched are not a threat to the Churched Culture, except passively and by implication. It is those of the De-Churched that have abandoned “Christianity” and embraced the sciences as an alternative. They are those who target the church as enemies. The Un-Churched are oblivious to the cause and, honestly, until something changes, the De-Churched will disciple the Un-Churched, via ignorance, at an alarming rate. 

All three categories do have one thing in common: All have an inert need of Jesus Christ. The Churched must remember who it is the story is concerning and make disciples of His (rather than a religion). The Un-Churched must inhale the smelling salt of the reality of Jesus Christ; not by becoming churched, but by expressing Him in and by the Un-churched Culture. And the De-Churched must realize that their memories have nothing to do with Jesus Christ, but in fact only a culture (of which they’re no longer a part), and utilize their energies and talents in telling His story. In whichever category one finds oneself – regardless of the culture – Jesus Christ is powerfully crossing cultures for the building of His Church; not a simple culture, but a composite of the three.

Vision Casting

The well said Chinese proverb (attributed to Lao Tzu), “Give a man a fish; feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish; feed him for a lifetime” is a lesson still being learned by the church. We feel better about ourselves, as the church, if we simply feed people daily. After all, it appears that the best way for us to measure our (so-called) effectiveness is to count the people we’re feeding. What if, rather than attempting to take account of our own self-worth, we taught people how to feed themselves? Is it better to count how many people are standing in line for a service or how many services no longer have people standing in line? Are we enabling… or equipping? Give people a fish and you’re enabling them to line-up, again, tomorrow (Is that by design?). Teach people to fish and you’re equipping them to break free of the line (a risk, I know; you’ll have to find something else to do “in the name of Christ”).

Antoine de Saint-Exupery once explained, “If you want to build a ship, don’t summon people to buy wood, prepare tools, distribute jobs, and organize the work – rather, teach people the yearning for the wide, boundless ocean.” This is Vision Casting! We must have a love for the ocean before we will embrace ship building. If one has a deep-seeded desire for the ocean, then, that one will undergo all types of suffering to be in it, on it, and/or near it.

Likewise, if we wish to build the church, we don’t call a meeting, prepare committees, distribute job descriptions, and organize (and manage) the work – rather, we teach people to yearn the wide, boundless love of God for humanity. This is Vision Casting! The building of the Church is driven by a love for God and the object of God’s love – humanity. We will subject ourselves to the sufferings of Christ (the architect of the building project) to be in, on, and/or near the love of God.

The Church can no longer be defined as a mass of humanity in need of constant feeding, either by a “ministry” or by a pastor, preacher, or priest. History has a name for this type of system – Feudalism – where peasants were completely dependent on their Lords for survival. The time has come for the Church to equip humanity, rather than enable it. It is time (again) to cast the vision of God’s love. The Church is built, not on its own self-worth, but by the worthiness of God’s love for humanity; in which the Church is an expression. Thus, we’ll leave the measuring of numbers to God, and effectiveness to changed lives and life changers.

Missio Dei

In spite of claims (and thoughts) to the contrary, Jesus Christ came and died, and was buried, and resurrected for all creation (not just “Christians”). “Christians” was used in the negative sense (originally) to describe those who belonged to “The Way of Christ.” It was not an end-result of a conversion, but a categorical description of a people; a way of life. “Christians” described “Those belonging to Christ;” or better yet, “Those owned by Christ.” The term was intended by the hecklers to alienate those of The Way from those of the norm. But Christ, Himself, never intended to alienate anyone (nor did he intend to be normal). In fact, He intended quite the opposite.

The work of Christ (in the past, as well as the present) benefits all creation, not simply the church. The Church is the expression of Christ on earth. Both of these statements being true, then, all creation generally and all humanity in particular is the Church. Because Jesus was the Last Adam – the one to rectify the deficiency of the First Adam and his posterity (Rom. 5:14; 1Cor. 15:22, 45) – His cross and subsequent resurrection affects all humanity. Not only that, but it also affects all creation because of the place humanity was given in creation (Gen. 1:26-28). In short, Christ died (and was resurrected) for “All,” not for some.

Obviously, however, “all” do not express Christ (whether within or without the church). Yet, this does not change the fact of the reality. What Jesus has done, with His death and resurrection, is to activate something that had been dormant in humanity since the Fall of Adam. Christ’s act did not institute an imposition of conversion, but it gave life to something that was already there; something in which we were created. It awakened the image of God in humanity. It resuscitated the Mission of God in creation, even if “all” humanity does not realize it.

God has a mission. The mission of God has a Church. God’s mission forms the church (not the other way around). The mission of God is not concerned with conversion, but expression. When the church has a mission it always entails a conversion (the conversion from any certain culture to a “Christian Culture;” i.e. the norm). But when the Church is empowered by the mission of God it is the expression of Christ – it is the embodiment of the death and resurrection; it is the express image of God in the resurrected life of Christ, again, in human form. Conversion is a form of alienation (despite the claims to the contrary). Expression is the mission of God through the church (from the beginning of humanity). And what does the Mission of God in the church express? It expresses God’s love, in the face of Jesus Christ. It expresses the risk necessarily involved in that love. It expresses the intent for creation generally and humanity in particular to love. In a word the mission of God is love.

Resurrection Power

I shall refrain from having a fit (and falling in it) concerning the (so-called) “Christian” idea of “Easter.” Nevertheless, I have yet to understand what an “Easter” bunny and “Easter” eggs have to do with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Eggs symbolize fertility (denoting the pagan goddess of fertility), and bunnies are known for their ability to increase the rabbit population rather quickly, but bunnies don’t lay eggs! Certainly the resurrection of Christ speaks to the empty tomb, where his body previously lay, after being buried, having been crucified for the sins of all humanity; yet, I don’t recall reading about bunnies and eggs in the Good News accounts. And as long as we continue to mix our symbols ignorance of the facts will pervade our attempted understanding of the Resurrected Life.

When the primitive church moved the “gathering day” to Sunday it was out of the understanding and celebration of the Day of Resurrection – the day that Jesus rose from the dead. Thus, the celebration of the empty tomb was every Sunday, and never was it called “Easter” (such terminology didn’t come about in the church until the Middle [Dark] Ages). The early church taught that a true understanding of the resurrection of Christ was vital to authentic Christianity (for it is the basis for life as a Christian and the Church). In a sense, then, they gathered (figuratively) around the empty tomb every Sunday.

Not only did they gather (at least) weekly to celebrate the Day of Resurrection, but the early church acted in the community out of the resurrection life of Christ, daily. They did not simply live in remembrance of the resurrection, but their lives were powered by the living resurrection life. Remembrance defines an historical event that occurred somewhere back in the misty recesses of time. Resurrection Life empowers a living definition, spoken by the living Christ, of what it means to be a Christian and the Church, today. If the Church simply remembers (annually) the historical resurrection event then it loses touch with the present resurrection life.

Nearly 2,000 years ago Jesus Christ left the tomb empty by the power of an indestructible life. The power that raised Jesus from the dead that morning appeared again shortly thereafter on the Day of Pentecost – the day that He resurrected humanity in the form of the Church. The power of the indestructible life is not something to be fondly remembered, but something to be lived into and out of every day. The power of the empty tomb, the same power of Pentecost, is the power at the center of the life of the Church today. If Christ is resurrected, then Christ is alive. Let’s not reminisce about the resurrection, let’s live in its power.

What is Truth?

“What is truth?” The questioned asked by Pontius Pilate (John 18:38) in the first century rings through the ages and into the twenty-first century. The idea of “truth,” and its interpretation, in the ancient Greco-Roman world was left to the philosophers. Before Pilate stood the Personification of Truth – Truth Himself – and Pilate didn’t recognize it (Him). Often we do not recognize truth when we see or hear it. There is an ignorance clause concerning truth, if one cannot recognize it. But ignorance is not bliss when one can recognize it, but chooses not to do so. More often than not we recognize truth, and do not like it. So we invent our own version or interpretation of truth, and like idiots we then live out of the fantasy that we’ve created.

Logically speaking, there must be absolute truth; otherwise things would be neither true nor untrue. Without absolute truth there is nothing by which to measure validity; nothing by which to measure if something is true or untrue. According to the Laws of Logic two competing “truths” cannot, at the same time, both be “true.” For example: The competing statements, “Truth is relative” and “truth is not relative” cannot both be true. Either one is true and the other is untrue or both are untrue, but both cannot be true. Furthermore, the statement “truth is relative,” by its own admission, is not absolute. Thus, to say that “truth is relative” means nothing, for the “truth” of the statement has been questioned by the statement itself. Likewise, there are some (possibly, like Pilate) who deny that there is truth. To deny that there is truth negates the notion that there is no truth. It is not (logically) possible to believe there is no truth. One is making a “Truth Statement” when they say that there is no truth and, therefore, denying the “truth” of not believing in “truth.” It is interesting that, those who claim that “truth is relative” do not allow for the “truth” of those who claim absolute truth. Again, it is self-contradicting to claim that “all truth is relative,” and then to exclude absolute truth.

All this being “true,” then, absolute truth – that truth by which all other truths are measured – must have been instituted, initiated, and defined by an absolute. That absolute we call “God” because He likes that. Not only that, but such absolute truth is the basis for reality. Reality is grounded in the truth that is beyond relativity. The word “truth,” throughout the New Testament, speaks of reality. Reality, by definition, is not relative. To deny reality is to embrace clinical insanity.

There are two competing ideas in the church today. One is based on relativity and the other on reality. The Scriptures plainly teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ – the Person of Truth. But the reality of this Good News has been interpreted (if not flatly denied) and made into a figment of the human imagination. Either Jesus Christ is “truly” the Head of the Church or humanity is in charge; either by Faith or by Religion; either by Grace or by Law. But both competing statements cannot be true. If reality is denied then the church is headless, faithless, and without the grace of God. If not led by the Person of Truth then the church is but a religion, competing with other human religions for the relativity of an ignorant fantasy of make-believe.

To Know…Or Not

Any system is perfectly designed to achieve that which it is already achieving, though any hopes of achieving anything more (or at least anything different) is not in the design. It has been well noted that the definition of insanity is to continuously do the same thing expecting a different result. Thus, in light of the paradigmatic shift that we are experiencing, any attempt to utilize the same system to produce anything more or different within the church than is already being produced is, by definition, insanity. If this is true, then we must rethink (think again; learn to think; unlearn and relearn, et. el) what “church” is and what the church is supposed to be. Herein we find the fundamental problem.

If we don’t know that we know – we only need to learn how to think about what we know.
If we know that we know – we only need a means to live out of what we know.
If we know that we don’t know – we need to learn from an outside source what we don’t know.
But if we don’t know that we don’t know – we do not see a need to learn to think differently.

If we don’t know that we know how to think in the new paradigm, then we only need someone (or something) to affirm that which is seated deeply in our memory. We simply need someone to remind us of what we know but don’t realize that we know. Perhaps we find ourselves thinking differently than the norm, but we just thought there was something wrong with us.

If we know that we know how to think in the new paradigm, then we are probably living it out in opposition (or at least, in competition) and in spite of the church system. The thinking of the new paradigm and its shifting comes natural to us; it is the only way we know how to think and live. Normally we find ourselves as the outcasts if we are operating in the system or many of us have left the system (usually by leaving the denominational branches of the church) in search of an avenue to exercise our thoughts. We find ourselves thinking differently than the norm, but we know that there is nothing wrong with our thinking.

If we know that we don’t know how to think in the new paradigm, then we must first attempt to learn that which we don’t know. Usually, if we don’t already know (either knowing we know or not knowing that we know), however, we will never know. Therefore, realizing that we don’t know how to think in the new paradigm and its shifting we must equip others who do know to live and move in their knowing. Because we don’t know doesn’t make us useless, but extremely useful. We supply cover and support – we are a bridge from the old to the new – for the new thinking. We are a necessity in the wholeness of the church.

However, if we don’t know that we don’t know how to think in the new paradigm, then we are (as a rule) in an impossible predicament. We fight to maintain the old system with its old ways of thinking and doing things; not realizing that we are actually fighting against God and His constant movement of the Church. Not realizing that we don’t know that God is doing a new thing, we see anyone who thinks differently as a threat, an outsider, and/or a trouble-maker. And since we don’t know God is doing a new thing we don’t know that we are maintaining an organization, and not moving as a part of a living organism. It is a certain fact that we will never know that we don’t know, simply because we don’t recognize that which we don’t realize.

Each member of the church finds himself or herself in one of these four categories (if you will) concerning this thinking of church and its purpose in the new paradigm and/or its shift.