Finding Meaning in the Meaningless

Ecclesiastes Overview

Introduction

Vanity of Vanities, says the Preacher, Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

No other book of Scripture begins with such a tone. Of course, though vanity today can mean "excessive pride in one's appearance," this is not the author's intention. Some translations say, "meaningless" and the Hebrew even conveys "emptiness or worthlessness." Some assume such a despairing tone is the author's attempt to shock and gain attention. However, the author also concludes the book (12:8) with:

Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, all is vanity!

A close survey of the book will show this is the Preacher's theme throughout.

But why the despair?
Is there really no hope?
How does this theme find consistency with the rest of the Bible?

Commentary

The [not-so] Merry-Go-Round of Life (1:3-11)

The despair of the preacher is immediately attributed to cycles seen in life, the most tragic being the coming and going of generations. A generation is born, lives and then dies, yet the earth just continues on as it always has. There are three illustrations of this:

The sun--Everyday, the sun rises in its place, travels across the sky and sets in its place again. Only to rise the next day and go through the same pattern all over again. (Some suggest "scientific inaccuracy" in the language, for it suggests the sun is moving in the sky. However, this is just figurative language, the same as we continue to call it a "sunrise" and "sunset," though we know the earth is in orbit.)

The winds--Similarly, the wind seems to cycle around the globe. The wind blows south only to double back north again. The cycle simply continues.

The rivers--Even the water cycle serves as an example. The waters flow into a lake, yet the lake never overflows. The river finds its source in another lake, yet that lake never runs dry. The perfect illustration of this is the Jordan River, which flows from the Sea of Galilee into the Dead Sea. Though the Dead Sea has not outlet, it never fills up.

Like a merry-go-round, cycles in life can seem fun at first but later become nauseating. A cycle can seem to bring stability and predictability. However, the despair comes in not finding a way out of the cycle. Eventually, these things become wearisome. We never find satisfaction in what we see or hear.

There simply is nothing new. What has come to be already existed and we're looking at the future right now, for it will simply repeat our present. Not only is this wearisome, but the fact that some people think things are new is wearisome as well. When someone thinks something is new, this only shows how quickly they forget the past. In fact, the cycle is so sure, we can even confidently know that future events will be a copy of present circumstances, and will also be forgotten. There seems to be no way of escape.

While we may be able to affirm this pattern by observing life, we do find a tension in this passage. No other part of Scripture provides this hopelessness. Can you imagine Jesus or John the Baptist standing in front of a crowd and declaring, "This is all worthless. It's a cycle with no escape and there is no point."

Why would the message of Ecclesiastes be so unique to the rest of Scripture?

The Author v The Preacher

To properly understand the Book of Ecclesiastes, I believe we have to come to terms with the fact that some things in the Bible are not true. This is not an attack on divine, verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scripture. It is an affirmation that the Scriptures record true statements from men, as well as false statements. We first meet Satan in Scripture as he lies. Job is filled with chapters of really bad advice from ignorant friends.

I remember once seeing a church website that posted the verse Therefore, if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours (Luke 4:7). This is a horrible verse for a church, for you must consider the source and purpose of the verse. This verse is not assuring us that all things will be come ours by worshipping Christ. THis verse is actually from Satan, to Jesus, during the temptation. First of all, Satan is calling for Jesus to commit idolatry. Second, it is a false statement, for Satan does not have the authority to eternally hand all things over to Christ. When we consider the context of this verse (including the source), we realize this statement is recorded perfectly in the Scriptures, but the statement is a false statement.

In the same way, I believe we are to understand the majority of the Book of Ecclesiastes as false thinking. Consider the third person to first person switch in the Book.

From verse 1:1--The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
From verse 1:12--I, the Preacher, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem.
From verse 10:7--I have seen slaves riding on horses and princes walking like slaves on the land.
From verse 12:8--"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "all is vanity!"

Observing the shift in person (from third to first back to third), helps us understand their are two main characters of the book of Ecclesiastes: The Author and The Preacher. From verse 1:12 through verse 12:7, we are given the teaching's of the Preacher, though I do not believe the Preacher is actually the author of the book. Consider how awkward verse 9 & 10 are, if the Preacher actually recorded these things about himself and chose not to do so in the first person:

In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs. The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly.

In verse 12:11, the Author reminds us that true wisdom comes from One Shepherd, and I believe it is his intention to contrast the Preacher's "wisdom" with the wisdom that comes from One Shepherd. THerefore, we need to understand that most of the book of Ecclesiastes is supposed to presented in contrast with Christ-centered thinking.

However, there are some obstacles we must be aware of to keep from tripping over details:

Who is the Preacher? Many (if not most) commentators suppose the Author to be Solomon. I do believe the Preacher may be Solomon (either directly quoting him, or basing the "sermon" of the preacher upon the experiences of Solomon.) While some things seem to affirm Solomon, many of these do not necessitate the Preacher to be Solomon (ie. Son of David can be simply mean descendant), while other statements seem awkward for Solomon to make (ie. "all who were over Jerusalem before me"). Again, the Preacher could be a direct (or indirect) reference to Solomon, however, there is another tragic reason it does not seem the Author would be Solomon.

Simply put, Solomon's life does not end well. Because Ecclesiastes ends with a call to fear God and appears to show the worthlessness of all his previous musings, many assume this to mean Solomon experienced a personal revival at the end of his life. However, 1 Kings 11 does not present a picture of Solomon repenting. I pray for his sake that he did, but the text seems to indicate that Solomon died in the despair and deceit of his sin.

Thus, if the sermon is Solomon's, it is likely a different author places the sermon in the middle of the book to illustrate to his son (12:12), how not to think. The Preacher's thinking does not consider the One True Shepherd, while the Author calls his son to consider all wisdom actually comes from the One Shepherd.

What about references to God within the Preacher's sermon? This seems to be the most common inconsistency of most commentators. Occasionally, the Preacher's sermon seems to find some hope and even speaks of true characteristics of God. Most commentators see these as signs that even when beat down by life's circumstances, one cannot remain in despair. These statements are seen as signs of hope and virtue.

However, nearly every on of these "positive" statements are followed another statement about vanity. None of these middle statements about God's character actually reveal joy, hope or delight in the Preacher. Instead, he rightly assesses an attribute of God (like Sovereignty), but does not delight in it (but rather finds God rather capricious). He may state something accurate about God, yet it is incomplete. Since the perspective of the Preacher is Christ-less, his thinking is naturally incomplete.

Derek Kidner, in his commentary on Ecclesiastes, reminds the reader that the secular mind is "not necessarily theoretical atheism, but a thoughtless attitude towards a God whose existence is unquestioned but unappreciated." Though the Preacher's view is Christ-less, it does not mean he denies the existence of God. It simply means he has not given God much thought, not does He appreciate and give thanks for Him.

Such a view of the Preacher helps us understand why he does not find joy, hope or worship when considering God.

Conclusion

So if most of the book of Ecclesiastes is inaccurate thinking, what benefit is there in studying the book?

Evangelism
Reading the words of the Preacher should break our hearts. We not only see the number of harmful ways he pursues pleasure, but also the empty results the pursuits produce. To know that real people are caught up in these vain pursuits should cause us to feel compassion for their despair.

I've heard people advocate that media is a great way to develop this compassion as well. Pastors will exhort their congregations to get to the movie theatre and watch the hottest television shows so that you can know what "unsaved Joe and Mary" are thinking. However, the entertainment may not be accurate to how a typical person things (there is still a vast difference between Rodeo Drive and Main Street), it may not accurately reveal the vanity of such thinking, and it also may present those pursuits in enticing ways that do nothing to promote your sanctification.

Instead, the book of Ecclesiastes serves us by taking us into the heart and mind of the Preacher. This also serves our evangelism for we can see the source of the despair that he feels. Many people will pursue these vain pleasures and think the reason they are coming up empty is due to a lack of resource. However, the Preacher shows us someone who was able to pursue these things fully, yet comes away unfulfilled. We should use his message to push others to see the vanity in their own pursuits. As the Preacher reveals, death can be a great apologetic. As one is forced to consider their own death, the things they live for now suddenly become powerless and worthless. We can sharpen our ability to lovingly point these vanities out to others by reading the words of the Preacher.

We're reminded that this is how most people think. And though they may believe in God, they may pursue morals and may even accept that Jesus was special, they do not see Him as Lord and Savior sitting above all things. To say this powerless form of Christ is genuine Christianity is like saying a tree and an elephant are similar because they both have a trunk. We see the contrast between a Sovereign Christ and a helpless religious teacher, but it also our responsibility to help them see the difference too!

Sanctification
But the words of the Preacher are not just for the lost. Though Christ is our Living Water, we can still be tempted to go to other wells. The words of the Preacher serve as a reminder to us that we should not be tempted to chase after these other pursuits. As we continue to war against the flesh, it serves us well to be aware of its strategies. The Preacher's words remind and rebuke me in my drift toward Christless thinking. They also serve as an encouragement to know that in Christ, such despair is completely removed. The despair created by these vanities are replaced by the hope of Him!

True Worship
Reading Ecclesiastes should cause you to exult in Christ!

The calling away from the Preacher's teaching is not to a different philosophy. Consider Colossians 2:8:

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

Paul does not simply call us to think more like Christians, Paul calls us to think on Christ. By looking at the completely Christless perspective of the Preacher, the believer is reminded that our hope is found in our Savior. He is out hope, not just the One who brings hope!

The book of Ecclesiastes should cause us to exult in Christ as we see the hope only He can provide and as we acknowledge His grace to us in allowing us to see His goodness. True wisdom does come from One True Shepherd, Our Chief Shepherd!

Acts 1:1-8

[The following post is a continuation of some ECM observations. Click on the label "emerging church" to catch some of the other posts.]

ECM and Specifics--Thy Kingdom Come

If you've spent any time talking to someone from "emerging" circles, you've heard the word "kingdom." The phrase "kingdom of God" or "kingdom of heaven" (this post will not attempt to explore any difference in these phrases) are certainly Biblical terms. Using this term is certainly not a bad thing, for Jesus used it often. Many who speak of the "kingdom" merely claim to be adopting Jesus' language.

However, like a Sicilian squealing "inconceivable," I'm just not sure they know what the term means. The more they use the word, the less it denotes. One has to wonder if this is intentional, for in my experience, those who use it most seem less capable of giving a definition. Is the word attractive because Jesus used it, or because it can be a bit hazy?

[Side note: The above paragraph used a cultural reference (gasp), suggesting maybe some have painted me with too large a brush. I do not hate culture, nor can culture even be avoided. Everyone lives within a culture, just everyone isn't obsessed with American "pop culture." I would also point out that it was merely an illustration and that now we will be turning to the New Testament, not the works of Rob Reiner.]

Perhaps Acts 1:1-8 can provide some definition. Consider the following:

1. "The first account I composed..."

Luke makes reference to the Book of Luke, Chapter 1. Acts, therefore, is a continuation of the first book he wrote to Theophilus. In the introduction of Luke, Luke explained his intention. Luke desires to compile a history for Theophilus (v 1). Luke worked hard to gather all the eyewitness information and record it in a sensible order so Theophilus could follow along (v 2-3). He did this so that Theophilis could know the exact truth of what he had been taught (v 4). Truth was available, and Luke's written account should make that clear to Theophilus.

2. "until the day He was taken up to heaven..."

Luke makes it known he is picking up right where he left off. He ended the book of Luke with the ascension and begins the book of Acts just before the ascension. We're not missing any major portion of the story.

3. "by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles..."

Christ spent His last moments with them instructing. These instructions were not advice or helpful aids, Jesus was giving them commands (orders [entellomai] means a strong command each of the four times Luke uses it). He was telling the apostles what they were to do. However, we must not see that this time of clear instruction has ended, for Jesus Himself said, "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away..." (John 16:7). Are we really to believe that Jesus gave the apostles clear teaching for them to obey and then left us with less? The Spirit Who led Christ in instructing the apostles has now given us His completed revelation and resides within us. Jesus said we are better off now with our instruction than the intense training these apostles received for 40 days.

4. "speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God..."

During these forty days, Jesus presented Himself to the apostles, gave them many proofs of His resurrection (undoubtedly, much of the proofs involved teaching from the Old Testament), and spoke to them about the kingdom of God. We're not given much description for what that looked like, but the disciples response later will help us understand.

5. "He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem..."

The kingdom of God is sandwiched between clear instructions. Luke lays out that He has commanded them, spoke about the kingdom of God and then commanded them regarding the Holy Spirit. He told them to stay in Jerusalem. He told them the baptism of the Spirit was coming. He told them it would be a matter of days. His instruction is very clear. Why would we assume He got foggy during the kingdom of God sections?

6. "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?"

The disciples are all gathered together and ask Jesus, "Are you at this time restoring the kingdom to Israel?" Clearly, the disciples were fired up about the kingdom. Jesus had been speaking to them about it for forty days and now they have one big question: "Now?" There are also a couple of other things to note from their question: a.) It could be immediate. The disciples do not ask Jesus if the long, slow development of the world into a multi-millennia program is about to start. From what Jesus had taught them, we must assume the kingdom was described in a way that meant it could imminently arrive. b). It would be by Jesus. The disciples did not believe they would be restoring the kingdom. They asked Jesus if He was going to do it. However Jesus chose to speak of the kingdom, we have to assume that over these forty days it was presented in such a way that the disciples believed it was the Lord's work. They do not even ask if "we" are going to restore the kingdom, having some role within the restoration. All responsibility is placed on Jesus' shoulders. c). He would restore Israel. These apostles, trained on a crash course in the kingdom, came away believing He would restore Israel. This is key for two reasons. The word "restore" means to return to its former state. (This is the same word Luke used to describe Jesus healing a man's hand.) Apparently, when Jesus spoke of the kingdom, it sounded a lot like the kingdom of the Old Testament. Thus, they also believed the kingdom was coming to Israel.

7. "It is not for you to know times or epochs..."

One could easily say the disciples got it all wrong and their question exposes their dense nature. Certainly, they had a track record of misunderstanding Jesus' teaching. Yet in this situation, Jesus only addresses one point of error: timing. He does not say, "Enough with the Israel talk, fellas, I'm done with her." He does not say, "No guys, this kingdom is a spiritual-inside-the-heart thing. It doesn't look anything like the kingdom used to." He doesn't even say, "Me? No guys, you are the ones who will usher in the kingdom!" To the idea of Jesus ushering in a kingdom much like what Israel had experienced before, Jesus simply says, "It's not for you to know when." If they were wrong about their expectations of the kingdom, Jesus did not set them straight.

8. "And you shall be my witnesses..."

Witness is not really a kingdom related term. It's connotations are that they could testify to Christ's life (especially to His resurrection) and to His teaching. It also is the same word (martus) which can be translated "martyr" (Acts 22:20, Revelation 2:13). Christ commissions them for the role of being His witness.

While there are certain elements of the kingdom that are hard to understand, it is amazing how this confusion can turn "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36) into "this world is My kingdom." However, many today consider the kingdom already here, or that it is our responsibility to usher in the kingdom. Rarely is this conflict noticed.

But of all groups, shouldn't our fellowship notice this the most. Within our Statement of Faith (which is silent on issues like creation, complimentarianism and is surprisingly brief about God the Father), we articulate:

11. SECOND COMING. The personal, visible, and imminent return of Christ to remove His church from the earth (1 Thess. 4:16-17) before the tribulation (1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 3:10), and afterward to descend with the Church to establish His millennial kingdom upon the earth (Rev. 19:11-20:6).

Our fellowship takes a decidedly premillennial perspective. We determine that Israel and the Church are separate. We determine that Christ is returning before the Tribulation (let alone before the Millennium). We also determine that Christ will establish His kingdom rule. (On a side note, I also find it strange that those who know our fellowship and are attracted to this language have not read Greatness of the Kingdom, possibly the gold-standard book of our fellowship's history.)

Today, many employ kingdom language to describe good works that are happening on the earth. Helping the poor, dealing with political injustice and cleaning up the environment are considered kingdom work. Most startling, these works can often be severed from gospel proclaiming ministry and even implimented by unbelievers and yet still considered of the kingdom. Surely, in the kingdom the poor will be cared for, the environment will be clean and justice will defintely be on hand. Therefore, it is wise fo the believer to pursue these God pleasing issues today.

However, to believe we can usher the kingdom in through these efforts, or to belive this is all there is to the kingdom is to miss much of God's future plan. Christ alone will usher the kingdom into existence at God's appointed time. Yet, these details are ignored or misrepresented, despite the fact that it provides the clearer language in Scripture.

If people really wanted to adopt Jesus' language, they'd spend much more time speaking of these future elements. We could probably speak of the kingdom less, but speak more clearly about how the Word describes it, and people would understand it better. After all, the kingdom isn't totally "inconceivable."

Matthew 13:13

[The caveats were gettting out of control. Therefore, I encourage you to check a former post to see that I desire to not be mean, rude or condescending.

I don't think all of the ECM is guilty of these issues. But the ECM has brought some of these issues to light. These issues, however, are prevelent in other areas of our fellowship as well.

If nothing else, I'm thankful that these issues caused me to look deeper into some passages.]

ECM and Teaching--Can We Use Authority?

In the last post, I suggested that Scripture teaches that it is perspicuous. Many today espouse a "hermeneutic of humility" that contradicts this point. Others, claim the Bible is clear and understandable (again, do not assume this means some texts are not difficult), yet they find that clear teaching is not as effective. Either people are turned off by past preachers who hammered every topic with iron clad confidence (even in areas where the Bible is silent), or our learning style has changed. Therefore, many preachers today choose to be vague. Ambiguity is in, clear directives are out. Many advocates of this teaching style claim a pretty prestigious line of teachers. In fact, aren't they simply teaching like Jesus did?

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.--Matthew 13:13

Therefore, if we present a captivating story, it will draw our audience in. They may not comprehend all of the details and perhaps they may even misunderstand elements, but at least they will be listening. Is it concerning that people may not understand? Certainly. But Jesus acknowledges this tendency and yet prefers to use parable as a teaching method. Isn't it a good idea to follow in His footsteps?

Let's consider a few details about the text:

1. Christ's Idiosyncratic Ministry--Christ did not speak in parables to help them understand His teaching, the text suggests He used parables to keep them from understanding Him. It has not been granted that the audience would know the mysteries of the kingdom. There are a number of reasons for this:
a. God's sovereign choice (Romans 9:14-18). God is glorified to reveal that He will grant understanding to some and not grant it to others.
b. Predetermined Plan (Acts 2:23). The Israelites had to reject their Messiah so that He could offer His life for their sins. Only by being rejected could Christ become our reconcilliation.
c. To Fulfill His Word (Isaiah 6:9-10). Jesus tells His disciples that He teaches in parables to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah. Not only is His crucifixion God's predetermined plan, His speaking in parables is one of God's predetermined forms to keep the crowd from listening.
Christ's ambiguous teaching was for our benefit. However, the sacrifice has been made, and there clearly is no longer any need for us to prevent people from coming to repentance. I am shocked that so many who claim "humility" fail to see this giant distinction between their ministry and His.

2. Non-Missional--Therefore, the parables were actually to prevent people from understanding the mysteries of the Kingdom. One must acknowledge that Jesus chose non-propositional story telling as a Kingdom stagnating teaching method. The Kingdom was not expanded (though it was further initiated) through this literary device.

3. Solved Mystery--Jesus is not content to leave His elect in mystery. Consider:
a. Mystery--Many people perk up when they read the phrase "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven." However, they seem to ignore that His disciples were granted to know these mysteries. Jesus did not desire for them to remain mysterious.
b. Knowledge Granted--Jesus tells the disciples that it has been granted to them to know the mysteries of the kingdom. They are not smarter or more clever than the others, they have simply been chosen.
c. He Teaches Clearly--Lost in Jesus' admission to using parables is that He does so while clearly teaching propositionally. He explains why He teaches in parables, explains that they are different and then explains the parable...piece by piece. His propositional teaching, only available to the disciples (v 10), was the means through which God desired to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.
d. Good Soil--When Jesus is explaining His parable, He declares that the seed that fell on the good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it (Matthew 13:23)! His very parable was about people who would understand His teaching (and that the majority would not).

Yes, Jesus often spoke in parables. But he had a unique mission and even desired that some would misunderstand. Those who choose to model their teaching after this typically ignore these issues. Furthermore, they tend to neglect that Jesus explained many of His parables to His disciples. They often consider His parables ambiguous and claim to be following His pattern. However, they also tend to ignore that His teaching had amazing authority! In fact, the crowd observes His authority in teaching just after He has told them that the wise man hears His words and obeys them.

But the proponents of this "new humility" will counter, Christ maay have taught with authority, but certainly we cannot. We have no authority! This would be humble if only it did not place the person in direct conflict with Christ. For His instructions were:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."--Matthew 28:18-20

He does not call us to teach them all I have commanded, but teach them to obey all that I have commanded. This cannot be done in vague terms. A person must be introduced to Christ's commands and introduced to practical application. But how can we do this? Don't forget...

He has all authority.

And He is with us to the end.

It's time for us to teach like it.

Matthew 18:20

"Getting More of God"

For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.

Have you ever planned an event, hoping for a larger attendance, only to be joined by one or two other people? Inevitably, somone speaks up, in effort to encourage the others, and states, "Hey, where two or three are gathered, there He is in our midst, right?" While the comment may have reminded you of the significance of brotherly fellowship, is this really what the text is stating?

For one, the Holy Spirit resides within the believer (Ephesians 1:13-14, 1 Corinthians 3:16). It is not possible to have more of God's presence. Jesus is not sitting on His throne in heaven, longing to commune with you, but waiting until one or two other people join you, to make it worth His while. The Spirit lives within the believer, and though you may not be yielded to Him (filled), that does not alter His location. (This is why songs calling for the Spirit to "rain down" especially get up my nose.)

Perhaps a look at the context would help. The verse before states:

Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven.

What does Jesus mean here. Is He suggesting that I could work out a sweet deal with my neighbor? We'll pray together one week for him to get a new car. Then, after that happens, he'll join me in praying for a swimming pool. We'll work out a deal where we agree, and then the Father must respond, right?

Of course, that seems shallow. But what about praying for a spouse? The healing of a loved one? For a sinner to get saved? Obviously, if two people praying for a person to become saved obligated the event to happen (I'm not saying it doesn't impact, surely Scripture articulates it does. But I am saying it doesn't "force God's hand."), then our mission agencies and evangelistic endeavors have been barking up the wrong tree for 2,000 years. Perhaps the verse above helps.

Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

To save time (and space), I will simply direct you here to read about this verse. Once you have, you will see that we start to understand the context is within church discipline. Now we're encouraged to pull back, examine Matthew 18:20 within its context, and see if there are greater clues.

Did you ever wonder why Jesus said two or three have gathered. He's the Son of God, it's not that He can't remember the precise number. God is also not whimsical, deciding somedays it takes two brothers, somedays it takes three. Why the flexibility in number? The answer is found in Matthew 18:16:

But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

Add yourself to the one or two witnesses and what do you get? Two or three gathered. Matthew 18:20 is a clear statement that within the church discipline process, Jesus is present.

That is why the gathering is in His name. For these men are using Christ's authority in the process. But how can miserable, sinful men have the authority of Christ? It is only possible with two conditions:

1. They must speak the words of Christ.

2. They must use the means Christ ordains.

Only in this way can they truly have any authority (for no authority is ours, but is given by Christ) and only in this way can Christ be evident.

A church which decides to speak where the Bible is silent or enforce rules not found in Scripture is not exercising the authority of Christ. His name is being used in vain in this matter. They may speak as if they have His authority, but He has not granted it.

Likewise, a church that decides to discipline while ignoring the instructions of Matthew 18:15-20 lacks the authority of Christ as well. Whether a person becomes overly angered and takes a matter to others before interacting with the offender one-on-one, or a church decides to "error on the side of grace" and sweep things under the rug, the authority of Christ can not be claimed, for His mode has been abandoned.

We are His ambassadors. We are to reflect Him. We may know Him, but we cannot make Him known if we neglect this important area. For if we abandon His words and His mode for the church, we cannot speak and act with His authority. We cannot claim to be about the Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible if we have cut these verses out. We cannont expect His presence to be evident, nor can we speak to the world with any conviction and power if we do not have His authority.

And simply gathering one or two others around us does not fix it.

John 1:14

"Did Truth and Love Sign a Prenup?"

Truth and Love once had a beautiful marriage. According to much of the conversation happening around us today, it appears the two have filed for divorce?

I'm amazed by the number of contemporary comments that seem to see truth and love as objects in opposition to one another. It seems that we are now taught you can either love someone, or you can tell them the truth. Rarely, if ever, can you accomplish both. This is especially the case if the truth isn't pleasant.

Apparently, the divorce papers were filed just after John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Somehow, Christ being full of grace and truth has become the story of two cosmic forces warring inside of the body of the Son of God. It's been perceived as the truth kept Him from being overly gracious, and the grace kept Him from being overly truth oriented. However, grace and truth still appear happily married in this passage. Christ was full of both, not balancing one another out, but both being fully manifested in His being. It was/is possible for grace and truth to coexist.

And while it may just be my personality and perspective coming out, it appears to me that most not only see love and truth as divorced, but love is the noble divorcee, while truth is the one no one chooses to associate with. Truth has become the creepy member of the divorce. The one who is the most to blame for the breakup. We're embarrassed by it and don't want people to know how much we used to love being around it.

The church is responsible to show the world that truth and love are still married. It's our job to share, not only that the two coexist, but that they are as strongly united as ever!