It seems honorable and scriptural and logical and natural to attribute all things to the sovereign will of God. How can any created thing exert authority over its creator? How can anything in this world happen beyond His knowledge or allowance or impetus? And if we have any doubt of that, there are plenty of verses to support these assertions. However, at the same time that we affirm God's rightful place on His throne, we often act and feel otherwise, as if, despite his omnipotence and omnipresence, He could use some human or angelic help from time to time. We hold prayer vigils, as if the quantity or fervency of our prayers can change God's mind or twist His arm. Does the arm of God need twisting? Does God need to be informed? We talk of a spiritual battle, but how can there be a battle if everything happens according to plan? If nothing happens beyond God's will, Satan and his demons are servants of that will, as are our sinful actions. All things, seemingly good or evil, work together for God's ultimate purpose. But if that is true, should we feel sorry for our sins? Should we ask forgiveness, as if our actions could be independent and contrary to His will? And if our actions are truly free, how can God be truly sovereign? Take it one step further. If we are free to sin, then my neighbor is also free to sin, which means he can come over to my house and murder my children in their beds, and maybe God won't stop him. Does God intervene in the free actions of men? Does he have a sliding scale for when He intervenes and when He doesn't? Would He allow me to lie and steal, but not murder? That's a lot of questions and conjecture. This is an issue over which the church has splintered, an issue that informs our perceptions of the character and power of God. Therefore it is an important issue, which is why we have these conversations. Let me offer a few thoughts and I will be eager to hear yours. The use of sovereignty is up to the sovereign. God has demonstrated that He can do what He wants when He wants and how He wants. He has ultimate authority over His creation. His sovereignty, however, is bound by His character. A selfish sovereign may create lesser beings to live for nothing but to ingratiate his ego. He would create servants to do his bidding, He would create an enemy with no hope of victory, and He would demand worship and confessions from fragile, error-prone beings. A selfish sovereign would control everything, allowing no true freedom to his subjects for fear of sharing glory. It would be like a man who wanted to be a successful filmmaker, so he built an army of robots to watch his film, applaud, and give rave reviews. He also programed some negative critics whom he could scold and dismantle later. Win. Win. An apathetic sovereign might create something, then become distracted and leave the creation to itself. We could have a sovereign God and also have evolution. A loving sovereign would create free creatures, both spiritual and physical, in order to have genuine relationships with them. That would allow for true rebellion, but also for true redemption. Of course this God can intervene if absolutely necessary (harden hearts, bend wills, send prophets), but generally allow men and spirits to make their own choices and deal with the consequences. There are drawbacks to such a system---senseless deaths, abuse, insanity, corrupt governments, unspeakable atrocities---but also great advantages. Is freedom worth the price we pay? Or is freedom an illusion?
Don't Fool Yourself
There was a time when I was obsessed with learning how to walk by the Spirit. If I felt a compulsion or heard a voice in my head, I would analyze it, trying to determine if it was God, a lack of sleep, guilt, or something genetic at work. I didn't trust myself. And I didn't trust anyone else. This was my personal challenge: If the Holy Spirit was removed from my life, how much of it would have to change. Without Him, I could still read my Bible. I could still pray. I could still have fellowship with believers. I could still listen to pastors and teachers. I could still serve my community. I realized that there was very little, if anything, in my Christianity that required an indwelling Holy Spirit. Apparently, the deposit Jesus left that would "lead me into all truth" was fairly inconsequential. As I continued to explore my need for God's Spirit, I came across certain barriers in my quest for "absolute truth," only one of which I will mention here. Perhaps you can think of others. I call it "God Talk." I saw it a lot in college: "I was so tired last night, but I knew I had to finish my paper, so I prayed and just kept typing and the Lord got me through it." But what about the millions of other students that accomplished the same thing with a lot of coffee and face slapping? Parents? "I needed sleep, but the kids were sniffing and calling for me all night so I gave them a little Benadryl and, thank God, they slept through the night." But John . . . we are encouraged to "acknowledge Him in all our ways," right? We should be giving glory to Him for everything that happens in our lives, for better or for worse. But what if it isn't Him? I guess we could argue that everything is from Him because we are His children and He loves us, and He will never leave us. If we hold that perspective, we will probably find ourselves saying things like "God is trying to teach me patience" when we are feeling impatient, or "God is good," once we've had our morning coffee, or "God is testing me" when things are not going well. Sometimes that might be true. Other times not. Does it matter to you? The Greeks attributed every natural event to the activity of their gods. But those gods were not real. Our God is. How often do we treat God like one of these Greek gods? Does it give us a sense of security to attribute everything in our lives to Him? Or should we? What if God is not responsible for keeping you awake while you write your paper? What if God did not put your children to sleep because he knew you needed it? What if God did not open up that parking spot at the last second because he knew you were in a time crunch? Maybe it just opened up like it did for that Buddhist in the car in front of you, or that Agnostic in the red Jeep. How do you feel about "God Talk"?
Dismembered?
I worked at a Presbyterian church for seven years. About halfway through my time there, the pastor took me to dinner and explained that the elder board was bothered by the fact that my wife and I had never shown an interest in becoming members. Becoming a member of a church never sat well with me, though I was never forced to voice my misgivings until faced with the direct question from my pastor. I answered something like this: "I am already a member of Christ's body, which means that I am already committed to this church and every other church that believes and calls Him Lord. What benefit would it be to go to classes and take vows of commitment to a specific faction of that body? This is not like marriage. I may be called to move to another church. I may not agree to all of the Presbyterian creeds, and even if I did, what if, in time, I came to believe something different than I vowed to believe? Would I have to retract my vows?" When I asked him why membership was so important, his answer was something like this: "It makes the commitment more palpable to the congregation. They feel more devoted to the ministry and mission of the church. They are more willing to serve. They are more willing to tithe regularly. It is not as easy for them to just leave." I understood his point, but in the back of my mind I was thinking that church membership is not like baptism or communion---scriptural mandates---but something that gives the leadership an idea of who they can depend on for tithing and service. It helps to give an individual church stability. That all seems good from a practical standpoint, but what about from a spiritual standpoint? Do we see the church as a spiritual organism, a body of millions connected to a single head (Christ) through a central nervous system (the Holy Spirit). Or are we divided into self-sustaining service organizations of like-mindedness (churches of various denominations)? Or both? How do you feel about this?
Ignorance honors God?
Questions are in vogue. They make us feel humble and submissive. We are seeking, asking, knocking. We are on our knees. But answers can make us seem arrogant. They have the potential to splinter us into even more denominations. And what if we're wrong . . . ? How can a man ever comprehend God? If we could somehow wrap our mind around him, wouldn't that belittle him? I would much rather just sit in the wonder of him, saturating in the mystery, absorbing each subtle thrill of curiosity and awe. Isn't that what worship is? But God created humans with spirits specifically that we might know him. Imagine me connecting with my wife the way we tend to connect with God: "Laurie, you are a woman. I could never comprehend you (there is some truth to that). Just let me catch a glimpse of your beauty. Just let me feel your presence next to me on the couch. I don't expect you to speak to me, you have already written letters to me in the past. But if you do, I will write your words in a diary and treasure them. Your body is made up of so many complex systems---internal organs, muscles, tendons, and molecules---I could never understand you fully. I just want to bask here in your glory. I just want to imagine the day I'll really be able to know you . . ." Now I realize that Laurie and I are both humans, and God and man are different, but I believe that God created man that he might have fellowship with him just as fully as Jesus had fellowship with his disciples. Yes, it means that we have to learn how to connect with him in more subtle ways than speech and facial expressions. But those means are fully available to everyone who has been made alive in Christ. I don't have to understand God's omnipresence to know that he is with me. I don't have to understand God's omnipotence to rest safely in him. I don't have to understand God's love to embrace it. Should my children keep me at an "honorable" arms-length because they don't know how to drive a car or pay the mortgage? Should I keep Laurie at an "honorable" arms-length because we have different anatomies? If God gave his people a Holy Spirit to "guide them into all truth," why do we keep God at an "honorable" arms-length and generally resort to knowing him through Bible study, our pastors, and our brains? Obviously, I am generalizing here, which is dangerous. There are many Christians that have vibrant relationships with God. But I'm thinking about the general trends of our Church today. The fact that we have so many questions and so few answers is a sad testament to our times. It is like a body that was so enamored with the mystery of the brain that it rejected the nervous system, preferring the humility of paralysis to the arrogance of life and function. Do you agree? Disagree? What do you see happening in the church?
Back From the Dead - Part 2
Back From the Dead - Part 1
It seemed fitting to resurrect Frank with the topic of resurrection. Unfortunately, after Frank finished a hellish few months of work, he took Spring Break too seriously to come out with a post on or around Easter Sunday. He apologizes. But after being dead for so long . . . well, you wouldn't understand. Christians get so excited on Resurrection Sunday. Jesus leaves the tomb alive and well, having conquered sin and death. The salvation work is finished. The pastor of my church (and I suspect many others) went into a lot of detail about how the resurrection must be historical fact, how Jesus is alive and well today, but . . . will you excuse me a moment as I stick on my cynic hat? If my Christian grandmother dies, I wouldn't say that Death has had its way with her. I wouldn't consider her really dead just because she didn't crawl back out of the coffin and ascend bodily into heaven. People actually celebrate at Christian funerals, assured that their loved ones are safe and sound, alive in heaven. So Jesus comes back bodily from the grave, walks around for a few weeks, then goes straight to the place he would have gone anyway. Where is the victory there? It seems more like a delay, a farewell tour, a victory lap . . . but not necessary for salvation. I grew up believing that it was the death of Jesus that made salvation possible. There were scriptures that led me to believe that sin was plastered in or on Jesus (as if it was some sort of black goo) while he was on the cross, forcing God to turn his face (as if he doesn't look on sinful people every day). Then, when the Romans crucified Jesus, sin was crucified with him. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. Romans 7:16-17 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. I Peter 2:24 But what is sin? Missing the mark, right? How can you kill "missing the mark"? Shoot it? Stab it?If sin is not physical or material, how can it be killed? Secondly, how could it dwell within a body? Another thing: Paul seems to think that the salvation work is incomplete without the resurrection, which means the work was not completed on the cross. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. I Cor 15:16-17 Since the death and resurrection is central to our life and hope, shouldn't we understand it completely? I grilled the Christians in my 10th Grade Bible class on this, and not one of them could logically explain how the death and resurrection of Jesus saved anyone. Can any of you answer these questions? (remember, I still have my cynic hat on) 1) If Jesus was forgiving sins before the cross (he claimed that authority) then why couldn't he have just forgiven everyone without going to the cross? Was his authority limited? 2) If Jesus conquered sin and death, why do we still sin and die? 3) Why was the resurrection necessary for the salvation of sins? 4) Why was a physical resurrection necessary?
Literally?
The Bible cannot always be taken literally. While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat. This is My body." Matt 26:26 Weird. But . . . I guess it must be. I mean, Jesus doesn't lie, right? Apparently cannibalism is one of the great sacraments of Christianity. . . . all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ. I Cor 10:3-4 So when the devil wanted to turn rocks into break, he was talking to the right guy. Since Jesus was a rock and his body is bread, it makes sense. This also explains why Jesus took so long to come save the Jews. He was a rock. How often did literal thinking confuse the people around Jesus? Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" And Jesus said to them, "Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." They began to discuss this among themselves, saying, "He said that because we did not bring any bread." Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" These seem like ridiculous scenarios. How could these people be so dense? But at the same time, how can we be sure that we're not making the same mistake? Most of us imagine hell as a place of utter darkness with a lake of fire in the center. Wait? Fire and darkness? Somehow our minds accept the contradiction. After all, the Bible is God's Word. Hey, maybe the flames are invisible. Or maybe there is meaning in darkness and fire, meaning than can help our physical minds to somehow grasp a spiritual place. Like a blind man getting a sense of blue by holding a piece of ice. Same applies to heaven. Lions and lambs? Streets of gold? No symbolic language there. What about prophecy? How many Jews rejected Jesus based on their literal interpretation of prophecy? Jesus did not ascend to the throne of David, therefore he was not the Messiah. What about the Parable of the Talents? For some reason all parables are understood to be physical things describing spiritual things--seeds, leaven, pearl, treasure--but in this particular case, Jesus is actually talking about money, right? In this one case. Right? Or, wait! He means our . . . talents. Christians, what is the great and valuable gift that God has given to us through Christ? Money? The ability to play piano? This may seem valuable to me, but I'm not the one telling the parable. What is valuable to Christ is the very thing he came to give--LIFE. The Holy Spirit. And that Spirit is to bear fruit, not just sit dormant in our spirits until Christ returns. Why do we twist these parables into pocket-sized, practical life lessons? The people had Solomon for that. Jesus didn't work at OSH. Bottom line: God sees the world from a Creator's perspective. Often he speaks in symbols, types, and shadows to explain things that would be difficult for physical creatures to understand. If we don't want to sound like the Pharisees, the Disciples, or Nicodemus we need to begin to understand that perspective.
New Direction
This next subject matter runs the risk of attracting spiderwebs and dust to this blog, but I'm willing to take the risk. I have learned that in Christian circles the most action comes from taking prayer requests. A close second, though more dangerous, is to bring up something controversial, like predestination, homosexuality, or speaking in tongues, though it's important to steer away from any solid answers. Third, talk about something obscure like the Nephilim or the mysterious undeaths of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses. That always helps to keep the eyelids from sagging. Why are we so easily bored? Maybe it's because everything seems to gravitate around something we've already heard a billion times. We know that Jesus died for our sins, we're on our way to heaven, we're doing our daily devotions, avoiding sin as much as possible, and now we just want a little support. Since we have to meet every week, it also might be fun to find interesting or controversial tidbits from the Bible to keep us talking, though we're not always sure what good it will do on a practical level. Back to prayer requests. The subject I want to bring up doesn't often come from the pulpit, but to ignore it would be to ignore the very thing that, for me, has shed a great deal of light on the Scriptures and has erased any doubts I have of the existence, character, and work of God. In fact, when the Holy Spirit began to teach me, this is where He started. The concept was presented to me while I was at Bible school back in '98. Every student was required to read through the Old Testament, so I cheerfully read through books like Genesis and Exodus, and dutifully pushed through books like Leviticus and I Chronicles. As I was chewing through the log of mid Ezekiel, I came across a passage that stuck in my brain like a splinter. In chapter 40, the prophet has a vision of an angelic man who takes him through the temple with a measuring rod and proceeds to measure every single item in great detail. Every single item. After several chapters of mind-numbing geometry, the man said something that struck me as odd: "As for you, son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the plan. If they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the house, its structure, its exits, its entrances, all its designs, all its statutes, and all its laws and write it in their sight, so that they may observe its whole design and all its statutes and do them." If they are ashamed of their sin, tell them . . . about a building? Be sure to mention that the width of the entrance gate is ten cubits and the length is thirteen cubits. Also, don’t forget, the porch of the gate is eight cubits and the side pillars are two. How could these numbers do anything for the sin of the Jews? I thought about this for a long time before coming to an interesting conclusion. Before I could understand the meaning of a created object, I had to understand the perspective and intention of the creator. In other words, God designed the temple with more than practical uses in mind. There is also symbolic meaning, and the symbols should be enough to expose our sin and show us how to deal with it. A look at Hebrews 8:4-5 only reinforces this concept: Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law, who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle, for, "See," He says, "that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain." Copy and shadow of heavenly things? The pattern of this physical object is important. And as we see in John 2:19, Jesus was staring at this building when he said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (speaking of his own body). 
In a sense, he was the building. The temple is full of symbols of Christ, from the sacrificial system in the outer court; to the bread, incense, and golden candlestick in the inner court; to the red, blue, and purple veil, and the Ark of the Covenant behind it. The temple is the ultimate sin exposing/sin expelling machine. But the building is only a big, complicated advertisement for the TRUE sin exposing/sin expelling machine--the person of Jesus Christ. Interesting how Jesus called the temple his Father's house. Isn't that what his body was? No wonder he threw those money changers out of there. But this was just the beginning of a concept that would unravel so much of my own superstition and bring so much clarity in the years to follow.
In God We Trust?
Can I be frank? I absolutely hate election season. Hate it. Hate it.
Life and Death
Sin is not the presence of something evil, but the absence of something good. PROGRESSION OF DEATH: God breathes His life into man . . . "and he became a living soul" Man prefers a human conscience to a Holy Spirit . . . the knowledge of good and evil God removes his Spirit . . . "on the day you eat of it, you will die" Men respond with defensiveness . . . "the woman that you gave me" God tells Cain that he must master his sinfulness . . . Cain is alone Cain becomes jealous of his brother. Jealousy becomes murder. So spiritual death (the absence of God) leads to fear, insecurity, and defensiveness. These fears and insecurities lead to all other sins (name one not related to a fear or insecurity). These sins can lead to all kinds of physical, emotional, and/or psychological dysfunction, even death. Then Jesus comes to puts God back in man ("I have come to give life, and that more abundantly"), and the Holy Spirit begins to restore the pre-Fall man ("from glory to glory into His image"). Do you agree?
Weak Strength?
What would Jesus do? Whatever his Father told him to do. We often imagine Jesus as a wise and spiritual man, preaching creative sermons, condemning the hypocritical Pharisees, and helping practically everyone in his path. That is the story presented in the Gospels. In John 14, however, Jesus opens a window to his soul, showing us what was happening behind the scenes. Jesus: Disk 2, Special Features. There, we see a different man, a weaker man, one that never acted on his own initiative. Jesus even claimed that his very words were dictated by his Father. In a sense, Jesus was the weakest man that ever lived. Which made him the strongest. 
We can't relate to this sort of man. From the day we're born, we're encouraged to stand on our own two feet, learn to make decisions for ourselves, be responsible. In fact, for people with just one spirit, this is true wisdom. But when the Holy Spirit moves in and starts to put his feet on the furniture, we are forced to go through a major adjustment period. Jesus never had this adjustment period. He was born, in a sense, roommates with the Holy Spirit. He was a man, but he was spiritually alive. Two spirits, one body. Even at age twelve, he recognized his true Father, and demonstrated a desire to be in the temple engrossed in the family business. From birth, he was groomed for obedience, and he followed that path directly to his death. He lived for his Father by living in his Father by the Holy Spirit. He functioned like no man we have ever seen. When we try to emulate him, we often try to mimic his actions, or even to muster up the same emotions and intentions, but at the base of his motivation was a love for his Father which translated into strict obedience. For us, born independent, we must grow in this life before we can even begin to relate. Can you imagine growing to the point where you can claim that not only your actions but your very words were initiated by God?
The Motivation
What kind of person does not even speak on his own initiative? That sounds like slavery to me. Look at these 1:1's Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus . . . James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ . . . Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ . . . Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James . . . But this is not exclusive to the apostles. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant . . . Philippians 2:5-7 So, yes, we are meant to be servants of God. But a bond-servant is not exactly a slave. In fact, the difference is very important. Bond-servants were unique to Jewish culture, instituted by God to illustrate the concept of spiritual submission and obedience, but with a valid and potent motivation: If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment . . . But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,' then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. Exodus 21:2, 5-6 
First of all: Ouch Second of all: This is not slavery under compulsion; this is service out of love. VERY different, and much more interesting. I am also intrigued by the fact that this slave is leaving blood on the doorpost, much like the Passover lamb. The awl is going through the man's ear, the place where he is to receive orders. The life of a bond-servant is to listen and obey. But why? "I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me; but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me." John 14:30-31 "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full." John 15:9-11 Love? Joy? Isn't that what everyone wants? Apparently, the very thing we hate--slavery--is the very secret to what we so desperately want.
The Chain of Command
When it comes to people, the "You in Me, I in You" riddle only makes sense when a physical person and a spiritual person are joined together. Let's say I have this special ability to move things with my mind, and I have used that power for the government for years and years. Now I'm old, about to die, and I'm about to leave the government with a hole that no one else can fill. Rather than just dying, I pass my spirit into my children, giving the government a handful of mental movers as long as my children learn how to connect to my spirit and learn the subtle nature of the connection. They would have to learn how to let me move things through them. It would be an interesting relationship, one that would require a lot of patience, listening, and submission. But in the end, it would be best for everyone. Simply put: I would be in my children, giving them my life and power. And my children would be an extension of me--my hands and feet, my branches. Now if my power came from a relationship with something else, like an alien spirit, then I would remain in connection with that spirit, but still give my spirit to my children, making a chain, like gears. The alien speaks to me, I speak to my children, things start moving, the government smiles. This is how the Godhead works, and it explains their unity. Look at these verses: Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works. John 14:10 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. John 16:13-15 
Hold on a second? Neither of them speak on their own initiative? So if the Holy Spirit speaks, he is just saying what Jesus told him to say, and if Jesus is speaking, he is only saying what the Father told him to say? So if I hear from the Holy Spirit, ultimately I have just heard from the Father. It is a system called Glorification. In other words, the nature of the Godhead is to let the OTHER person be seen and heard. No wonder Jesus said, "Pray to the Father." The Father is the head of the chain. So how can we practically apply this ourselves? Where do we fit in the chain?
The Mystery Explained
He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? John 14:10 Jesus asks the question as if the riddle should make everyone sort of smile sheepishly, nod their heads, and sort of elbow each other in the ribs. But . . . can you explain it? Why didn't this riddle get into the discussion when people were trying to solve the whole, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" issue? The Roman bishops used a Latin word homoousion, meaning “same substance,” to describe the relationship between the Father and Son. Both are God, and God is one. But why create a solution that seems even more difficult to understand than the solution Jesus presents here in John 14? Some may not think this riddle is important, but Jesus uses it again, the second time he includes his disciples. In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. John 14:20 The third time, he includes US: I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us. John 17:20-21 So let's start with the most simple of the three riddles: Jesus and his Father. How can they both inhabit one another at the same time? It seems to defy the laws of science. But Jesus, as he often does, provides his disciples with a parable to understand it. The parable is very familiar and can be found in the very next chapter--the vine and the branches. 
Let's break it apart: Jesus is the branch. The Father is the vine. How is the branch in the vine? That's easy, we can see how that works. The branch is growing right out of it. It is an extension of the vine's life, an extension that produces green leaves for healing, and fruit to offer sustenance and strength to others. The life of the vine finds expression through the branch. But remove the branch, and the branch is dead, good for nothing but to be bundled up and burned. How is the vine in the branch? In this case, it is not the physical vine that is in the branch, but the life of the vine. The vine takes the water and nutrients from the soil, and gives it to the branch, allowing the branch to live and grow and bear fruit. We're talking about the indwelling Spirit of God. This is also true of an arm and a body. The arm allows the body to express itself and to accomplish things. But the life of the body gives the arm everything it needs to live and grow. By being an active member of the body, it is connected to the brain through the nervous system, and receives the blood it needs from the heart. In the same way Jesus received life from his Father, and functioned in response to that life. But if the vine and the branch are the exact same thing---homoousion . . . Now I'm confused. There is much more to be said about this subject, but for now I want to challenge you to take the vine and branches illustration and apply it to the other two mysteries (John 14:20 & John 17:20-21). Can you explain them?
Join the Trinity?
Jesus never claimed to be the same person as His Father. Not once. He only claimed to be ONE with his Father, so much so, he could say, "When you see me, you see the Father." It seems that the only way the Council of 300+ bishops at Nicaea could explain the seemingly dual nature of Jesus was to assert that Jesus and His Father were exactly the same person. But since Jesus never makes that claim, we should be hesitant to blindly accept the claims of these men who were making decisions over 300 years after the events. This may sound like heresy, but my challenge is to the bishops, not to Jesus himself. If Jesus claimed unity with his Father, that's what he had. He didn't claim to be of one substance with his Father, which is what the Nicaean and Athanasian Creeds so boldly declare. This was their best solution. But we don't need to jury-rig this one. The answers are presented in John chapters fourteen through sixteen, the passage where Jesus gives final instructions to his disciples. It is in this passage that Jesus explains his unity with his Father, then invites them to share in the same kind of unity with him after his ascension. Wait a second. Join the Trinity? We can't even understand it, much less join it. "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one." John 17:20-22 How can we possibly be one "as they are one," if we could never understand their unity? The mystery, as Jesus presents it in John 14, is answered in a riddle: Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works." Clearly the Bishops at Nicaea were not science fiction fans. They would have loved that solution. What about you? Can you explain the riddle (in bold above)? If you know the answer, be thou silent...
The Elusive Nature of Jesus
"If, in this city, you ask anyone for change, he will discuss with you whether God the Son is begotten or unbegotten. if you ask about the quality of bread, you will receive the answer that 'God the Father is greater. God the Son is less.' If you suggest that a bath is desirable, you will be told that 'There was nothing before God the Son was created.'" -- Bishop of Constantinople, 4th Century AD. This is what happens when you announce that to be Roman is to be Christian. You end up with a lot of confused people. The nature of Jesus is hard enough for us good, Bible-reading, modern-day Christians to understand. In 325, to stave off heresy and put an end to the debate, a Council of about 300 bishops got together at the order of Emperor Constantine in a place called Nicaea. There, they developed a Creed that included the following statement: We believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ the only son of god. God from god, light from light, true god from true god. Begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. The Holy Spirit didn't officially join the Trinity until around 500 AD with the Athanasian Creed, though the inclusion was assumed and inevitable. From that day to this, the nature of Jesus is easily explained. Here, let me try. We'll have a Question and Answer time. Q: If Jesus was truly God, why did he say things like, "Why do you call me good, only God is good?" or ""But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." Who was he praying to all the time? Himself? A: That was Jesus in his humanity. Q: If Jesus was truly man, how could he walk on water, feed 5000 men with a little boy's lunch, or command fish to jump into fishing nets? A: Don't you know that Jesus is 100% man and 100% God? Jesus was being in God in those instances. See, it's simple. Depending on the circumstance, you can just attribute the appropriate aspect of God's nature. That clears everything right up. Does anyone else feel like our brains are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by just calling the square peg round? If we are to believe the Bible, we must accept that Jesus walked at times as a God and at other times as a man. But how is this possible? Can he split his nature like that? Does the doctrine of the Trinity really give satisfying answers to ALL the questions that the scriptures present? Was Jesus forsaking himself on the cross. Was he begging himself to take the "cup" from him in the Garden of Gethsemane? Judging by the fact that no one responded to the poll question: "Did Jesus know if the world was round?" I can see that this issue is not as clear cut as we pretend it is. How do you personally grapple with it?
Profound Discovery
If you want to understand why a thing was made, it is important to study how it was made. A watch is built with a second, minute, and hour hand to keep track of time. A piano is built with keys, strings, hammers, and a soundboard to make music. You can usually see the purpose of an object by the aspects of its design. So how and why were we made? Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:26-28 In short, God made man in his image and likeness, capable of exerting God-like dominion on the earth. So before we move on to purpose, let's analyze these qualities. IMAGE: To call ourselves sinners and then claim to bear the image of God seems like a heretical contradiction. "But Frank," says the concerned reader, "it's right there in black and white. We are in created in God's image." When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. Genesis 5:3 The first man (Adam) is from the earth, earthy; the second man (Christ) is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. I Corinthians 15:47-49 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. II Corinthians 3:18 Scripture seems to say that image was lost at the Fall, and is to be rediscovered in Christ. DOMINION: Can you "rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky" as Genesis suggests? If you want to call a birdcage and a fishbowl your own personal kingdom, then I guess you can claim dominion. But caging something is not the same as ruling over it. Have you ever seen a man that fits this description? Do we need to redefine the words "image" and "dominion" in order to make Genesis fit the contradictory evidence all around us? Has a man ever claimed to look just like God? Has a man ever showed such dominion on the earth so as to command fish into fishing nets? Have you ever considered that Jesus was not here to act as God, but as MAN? A true man. And, by acting as man, he showed us God.
Why are we here?
Why would God bother making something that he knew would be rebellious, depraved, and ultimately cost him a trip to the cross? Sounds like a bigger hassle than David Hasselhoff, and it doesn't get much bigger than that! 
So why make man at all? Maybe he was just bored with "formless and void." Maybe God had too much headache medication and wanted a reason to use it. Maybe he wanted to create a bunch of finite creatures and watch what happened when he put billions of seductive, powerful, self-seeking angels on earth with them. Then, after the humans mess everything up, he could govern them with a bunch of impossible laws and watch them squirm. Wow, Frank is in top form today! Go Frank! But wait . . . is that a thunder cloud? This is not a new question. Sincere believers ask "why" as much as non-believers. I have heard many different answers: God was lonely (despite all the angels and cherubim and so on). It pleased him to do so (he said "it was good"). We will never understand with our puny brains. He needed an outlet for his mercy and wrath. In 1647, the Reformers, while working to create a catechism for purity and unity of doctrine, made this their number one question. Q: What is the Chief End of Man? A: To glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Do you agree? Or is there a better answer?
Perfect?
I saw this bumper sticker last week: Next time you think you're perfect, try walking on water! First of all: Oooooooooooooooooooooh. Nailed me! Second of all: WHAT? What does "perfect" even mean? In Christian circles we talk about "perfect" quite a bit. We say that, if Adam and Eve didn't eat that darn apple, we would still be perfect. But here's a question, if Adam and Eve were so perfect, why did they eat the darn apple? In Matthew 5:48, Jesus challenges the Jews to "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." How could Jesus ask for us to be perfect? Didn't he know that "nobody's perfect"? Didn't He know that we, having been born in sin, can never be perfect. At least in this life. Only pre-fall Adam and Eve, and God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are perfect. The rest of us have to deal with things like boogers, poop, sinking in water, and saying "um" all the time. It's part of the curse. A Bible Gateway search of the word "perfect" in the NASV reveals enough instances and context to provide a reasonable definition. It basically means complete, whole, mature, lacking nothing and unblemished. That would make sense with Matthew 5:48 which is just another way of confirming "Be holy, for I am holy," from Leviticus 11:44. Whole. Holy. Perfect. So perfection does not having anything to do with special powers. It doesn't have anything to do with boogers, or stuttering, or tripping. I'm sure Jesus sneezed once or twice. It has everything to do with wholeness, and it is relative to the creature or object being described. Things are imperfect when they are missing something. A functional pen with no pen cap is imperfect, but when the cap is returned, it is perfect again. Complete. God can be nothing but perfect. He doesn't change. His people should function as they were created to function. But that doesn't mean that our wholeness will match his wholeness. We are two different species. So what does perfection look like for a human?
The Knowledge of Good and Evil
What could possibly be wrong with the knowledge of good and evil?
