And you did not visit Me.

For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’
“Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’
“And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’ - - Matthew 25

He lives in poverty. Oh, to look at it from the surface (because Heaven forbid you look too closely) it might not seem so, but he often has to make the choice between eating and paying the electric or the phone bill, and sometimes both bills. He is on social assistance because he has no other choice. Seriously. There are people who really CANNOT work.

His house is dirty and messy. It is that way because he cannot see well enough to clean it. He is on the list for a cataract surgery, but there is no date on that yet. He longs to be able to see. He hates living like this. He is unable to work because of his vision and many other health problems ... but he would love to be able to work to pay his bills on time and afford to do so many things that people who don't live in poverty take for granted.

He doesn't trust people, because people have always let him down. They have hurt him, or taken advantage of his generosity when he had a bit more money, or they judged him, so he has learned to be wary of people and might even push them away. He especially doesn't trust Christians. They sit back in their nice houses and designer clothes and they judge him without taking the time to know him. He has no time for people like that. 

So on the surface, he seems prickly by nature. He calls it like he sees it, and that makes people uncomfortable. So they stay away. As a result, he is lonely. And you might think that he has brought it on himself, that if he were more friendly, he might have more friends. But almost everyone he has ever known or trusted in his life has either let him down, or judged him, or used him, or a combination of all three. He can't afford to trust.

Image from Pixabay - a blur of long grass

He has his property, the one good thing he has left of his parents: his father, who died years ago, and his mother, who deeded the property to him before she got dementia and had to be placed in a nursing home. He has one beat-up little car, which he just barely manages to keep road-worthy in case he needs to drive it, which doesn't happen often.

Everything else has been stolen from him. The neighbors drive by the house and shake their heads, tutting to themselves when they see that his lawn is overgrown, grass as tall as four feet in some places. They don't bother to stop in and ask him if he would like someone to come in and cut it for him. They wouldn't do it for nothing. Rather than care for him, they would rather think he doesn't care. He does care. He just cannot physically go out there and use a push mower. He has a heart condition, a lung condition, failing kidneys, is nearly blind with cataracts, and he has other health conditions as well. And he simply cannot afford to pay someone to cut the grass, nor could he afford a ride-on mower in a million years. Simple as that. 

He used to have homemakers coming in to the house. But someone saw a rodent trap and then they refused to come in. The house has rodents because part of the house sits on a mud basement, but he cannot afford to do the home renovations that would need to be done to keep the critters from coming in. He has battled them for months ... and he is winning. But until the gateway is closed (that is, until there is a cement barrier), the battle will continue. He has asked the government for help. But there is one problem. There is no guarantee that the government will help him.

He has nobody to help. And everyone assumes that someone else will do it. So nobody does.

The church has forgotten him. They are too busy raising funds for this or that missionary half a world away while he lives in squalor beneath their very noses. They hold those upturned noses and look the other way because he doesn't attend church, so they consider him to be apostate. He doesn't attend because he has been too hurt by Christians judging him in that exact way just because he gets frustrated and loses his temper with people sometimes. Live in poverty yourself, and then see how quickly you lose your temper.  

Every unexpected bill that arrives is a crisis. Every unexpected setback is overwhelming. He has attempted suicide ... and only an intramural nurse saved his life because she called him after he had taken the pills. She called the ambulance and they came and got him. He was in the hospital for weeks, battling depression and hopelessness and panic. You didn't know that, did you? No, because you forgot him; he was easy to forget.

Strangers help him before the church would ever think to. It was strangers in a community service organization who replaced his fridge when it got broken last winter. They came in and took out the old one, set up the new one and brought groceries to put in it. And these strangers were NOT from a Christian organization. 

The only family members who do care for him live so far away that it is very difficult to make sure his needs are met from day to day. They have their own bills to pay too. They help whenever they can, but it is not enough; he lives on only $537 a month, and no more. In the day by day reality, he lives with the knowledge that others have the power to get together and help him, but they don't. Or they won't. 

And there are many others like him out there, people the church has forgotten because 'the government will look after them.'  Well - the government keeps these people below the poverty line so that they will be motivated to seek work. But this fellow can't work. What about him? 

What about you? What about me? Where do we fit into all of this? Do we - as a result of our own lack of action - keep people like this gentleman trapped in what amounts to a prison of poverty, just because he doesn't look like, talk like, or act like us? Do they have to clean up their act and be more like us just so we will look at them?

I'm not saying he hasn't made mistakes in the past. I'm not saying he isn't making mistakes now. But the fact remains that he is struggling for every last hour he remains on the planet. It should not have to be so hard. WE do not have to be so hard.

We have lost our Way. And if we don't find the Way of compassion and love, someday we may hear that WE did not feed, clothe or visit the ones in need. 

Fabricated fervor

I tend to be a bit of an iconoclast. An iconoclast is someone who challenges the idols of the past and destroys them if possible. And that's a dangerous thing to be - for the iconoclast (LOL). It usually means that someone like me comes under a fair bit of attack by the proponents of the status quo. Those who are attached to their household (or sanctuary) idols feel threatened by me saying, "But WHY do we do it that way? This makes no sense! This is not right!!" and so forth. 

And so, here I go again with the sledgehammer.

Over the past several months to few years, I've been doing a LOT of thinking about how the western church "does church." And by "the church" I am talking about the people, the people groups that gather to (apparently) honour God with their worship and their love and service to each other and (hopefully) to the world. And by "does church," I am speaking about the rituals and sacred cows that we have become attached to when wearing our church-attender mask.

I've looked carefully at the early church as described in the New Testament ... and nowhere do I see that they met once a week and sang five songs, ended the singing 40 minutes later, took an offering and had a sermon with a final song or two (or five) to finish up. They met from house to house, but nowhere do I see where they had to sign up to do so. Nor do I see any kind of reference to programs or topics or themes or leaders or study books. Rather, I see people who loved being together, who went from house to house on a regular basis, possibly as much as daily (!) as the Spirit led them. And they shared and talked about Jesus, talked to Him, gained spiritual strength from being together in the presence of God. Hmmm.

That's not what I see today. It breaks my heart.

Everything we do as believers in the western church is regimented, even in denominations that have prided themselves for DECADES on being "spontaneous" and "led by the Spirit." There's a structure, a set of tasks to accomplish, and in a certain order, each taking a predetermined amount of time, without all of which (it is believed) church just doesn't happen.

It's funny .... I kind of believe that church (first of all) is whenever two or more gather together in Jesus' name. It isn't a building, it doesn't have a human-organized structure as such, and it doesn't need money to operate. (Horrors!!) Church can happen (believe it or not!) even at a bar, if it has to (and it WILL if there is no other place for God to manifest His presence). Or ... at a coffee shop. Or in a kitchen when two friends share while doing dishes. Or on a golf course. Or in someone's basement when folks get together and "jam" with a couple of guitar and/or a keyboard. Or listening to and watching some Youtube videos of worship music. Jesus said that the rocks and trees would cry out His praise if the human voices were silenced. Is it such a stretch to think that He might show up in a place that is not authorized?

The number one requirement for such a gathering is spontaneity. If that doesn't exist, the "group" is just as cold and dead as the inside of a crypt. It serves no Kingdom purpose. None at all. It's just a bunch of people congratulating themselves for "not forsaking the assembling of [themselves] together" (Heb 10:25). Can I confess that I absolutely hate that verse? Or rather, I hate what it's been used to justify; I hate that people take that verse and club people over the head for not going to church regularly or for not signing up for a small group. Or for whatever other times or reasons the church (or hand-picked leaders') doors are open.

And let me go out on a limb here and say something else that might be considered radical, even (I dunno) iconoclastic! It's simply this. Spontaneity cannot be legislated. It's like expecting positive and immediate results when a university professor stands in front of his classroom of students at 9:17 a.m., and makes an announcement to the students, "You will now have fun. Go ahead. It's fun time." 

Seriously?

Photo "Chain And Hand" by worradmu at
www.freedigitalphotos.net

It doesn't happen that way. Doubly so when we're talking about something that God has made very clear can't happen without HIM!! Humans can't create the Spirit's presence in a test tube. We can't fabricate fervor. We can't regiment passion. We can't organize an organism. 

If we do, they all die.

If we shackle what was intended to be spontaneous, there might be a little knowledge transferred and we might think we're "accomplishing something" or "learning a lot" - or even "developing relationships" ... but we will have missed the whole point. Church, real church, isn't about learning stuff or feeling accomplished or patting ourselves on the back. It's about connecting with God and with each other on a spiritual level, not on a superficial level that touches only our minds. 

I'm not saying, "Don't go to church" or anything else like that. I'm saying that it might be time to RE-THINK what we have believed is so important when we gather together. It might be time (here's a radical thought!) to allow small groups to develop on their own rather than control the whole process with leaders and training seminars and sign-up sheets and hard-core marketing techniques. 

Those things turn me off in the worst way; I run in the opposite direction when I hear those kind of heavy-handed should-fests. I don't know about you, but the best way to keep me away from something is to tell me that I HAVE to do it or to judge me for not doing it. It's by telling me that I am less of a Christian, that I'm not doing what God wants me to do if I don't subscribe to the flavour of the month, whatever that is. Sorry. It's just not going to work with me. I figure that God put a brain in my head for a reason, and He put His spirit within my heart so that I could learn to listen to His voice and do what He tells me WHEN He tells me to do it. And I don't need someone else to do that for me. 

And yes, if I could find a gathering that is truly organic, I would probably want very much to be part of it. When I find it ... that will be something to write home about.

Leaving and Cleaving

One thing I've heard a fair bit about lately - from various (married) sources - is the idea that one's "home" is where one grew up or where one's parents live.  

While I almost envy folks who have a good relationship with their parents, I think I would draw the line at the thought of having one's homing signal beeping out from smack dab in a parental home.  I'm talking mostly about the loyalty factor but also about the idea that it's okay to live with "Mum and Dad" after starting a conjugal relationship with someone else.

I understand that for some, this is the only solution financially.  But having lived with a parent after marriage (either in the parent's home or having the parent live in mine) I can say from experience that it can be (and very often IS) problematic to share control over a household in that manner.  Nobody knows who is in charge or has the final say, especially if there is (gifted or loaned) money involved.  Styles of household management differ.  Methods of parenting are very often a topic of friction.  And then there's the uncomfortable dynamic of parents taking the side of one or the other of the adult children who are living under the same roof, during an argument.  Not to mention the temptation some parents have to criticize everything the daughter in law or the son in law does and yet not lift a finger to help.  Or to do everything for the child and in so doing, "take over" and not let their child be independent.  But I shan't go there today.  

The model of multi-generational households has been around for a long time. The Jews in Jesus' day, for example, helped their children get a good start in their marriage by the son being allowed to build on to his parents' home or build a house on his parents' property, and set up housekeeping.  But it was never meant to be reason for one generation to meddle in the affairs of the other.  

The natural order of things is for the children to grow up, move out, and start their own family unit.  Jesus quoted Genesis 1 (ahem, that was BEFORE the Fall of mankind!) when He said that the original intent was for a man to leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.  The same could be said of the woman - that she would leave her father and mother and cleave to her husband.  That means that "home" is now with each other. It is NOT in the parental house. It's in the wedding vows by the way... "...forsaking all others..." could just as easily apply to the birth family as to previous boyfriends/girlfriends.  

Source:  (from Google Images)
http://triadmomsonmain.com/_blog/My_Blog/post/
Is_Your_Mother-In-Law_a_Marie_Barone/

 Even if not living with "Mum and Dad," the parent-child (or the in-law) relationship can wreak havoc - as can the idea that the person's locus of identity is not in the nuclear family (i.e., with the spouse and children) but with the birth family.  

Many people DO have good relationships with their parents and in-laws, and their siblings and their spouses for that matter. Congratulations if you are one of them!! But I've seen it happen:  the fastest way to wreck an intimate spousal relationship is to have too close of a relationship with the parents.  The kind where - for emotional support - one turns to the parent rather than the spouse, the kind that complains about the spouse to the parent,  ... a friend of mine calls this "up your nose" relationship "spousing" (an interesting and descriptive term which I've found useful.) This can be done with parents, friends, relatives, children, even co-workers ... and it is always unhealthy. I've even known people to practice "spousing" at church.  In fact, one husband yelled - as he threw a Bible across the room in a fit of temper - "Why don't you just take a bed and LIVE up there?"

How long has it been, I wonder, since I've gone to my husband FIRST and asked HIS opinion on something I was thinking about?  Since I've taken HIS side in a discussion?  Since I've chosen time with HIM over time with another family member - or time with 'the girls'?  Since I've gone where HE wanted to go?  Since I've told him that my home is with HIM and not somewhere else?  Since I've expressed to him how very much I love HIM? 

It's well worth thinking about.

To Be Known

A couple of posts ago I made passing reference to this topic of 'being known' by God.  

Paul talks about this specifically more than anyone else does in scripture. It's not one of his major themes, but it does pop up in his writings more, probably because he was well-versed in the Old Testament scriptures (more about those later).  

To introduce this idea, perhaps I'd better turn to one of the more beloved passages in Scripture: that of the love chapter, 1 Corinthians 13, written by the apostle Paul.  Verse 12 says (about when he finally gets to Heaven) "... then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known."  

But doesn't God know everything and everyone?  After all, Jesus said that the hairs of our head are numbered, David talked about God knowing everything about us.  However, given the context, I believe that Paul is talking about a different kind of knowledge.  He talks about being "fully known."  This is a reference to the ancient Hebrew term "yada" which means to know someone the way a man "knows" his wife - that is, in an intimate way.  Ooh.  That puts a WHOLE new spin on it!  

Which explains the teaching of Jesus about judgement day, when people start listing all the wonderful things they've done, and the Judge says, "Depart from Me ... I never knew you."  

OUCH.  I guess that's kind of important, then.  So ... what does it mean to be "known by" God?

Source (via Google Images):
http://www.warholstars.org/chron/1963.html

In 1 Cor. 8:3, Paul says, "If anyone loves God, he is known by Him." (By the way, that "loves" is the Greek agapé - often referred to God's love - which means it's humanly impossible!  It's so like Him to proactively give us the kind of love we need, with which to love Him back!!  It speaks of John's words, "We love Him because He first loved us.")  This also rings true with the secondary meaning of the term "to know" - which is "to progressively become familiar with" - that is, as in a very close friendship (which, if it works right, is the foundation out of which springs every good intimate relationship - but I digress).

In Galatians 4:9, Paul says again, "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?" (I may come back to the book of Galatians - one of my faves - in another post.)

So from the above verses, we've seen that being known by God is far more than just being known the way a creator knows his creation - it involves an intimate personal relationship which is progressive. It produces a desire to know God in that same way (Paul speaking here again): "More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish, that I may gain Christ, and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him..." (Philippians 3: 8-10a)   

Wow!!  That's passion!  and it originates with Christ's love and passion for us.  

The intercourse imagery behind the verb "to know" brings me right back to a couple of Old Testament references.  One is the Song of Solomon - which if you would like to read as an allegory between Jesus and us, do so in a version that shows who is speaking - such as the Message. (By the way, the intensity of the language is enough to make some of us blush!)  The other is the reference in Genesis 3, after the fall of man, where (in the King James Version) it says, "And Adam knew his wife..." (This is the Hebrew word 'yada' which I mentioned before.)   It doesn't take much imagination to picture that. This kind of "to know" is repeated again and again in the Old Testament - Moses and the prophets are full of sexual references!  Anyway, I was thinking primarily of these two passages.  And there are some parallels that I would like to draw before I close this post, keys to allowing God to know us.  Individually.  Completely.

1.  We have to get close.  God took the initiative on this one - but we can always say no - and when we say No, there is no know.

2.  We have to spend time at it.  This is not a one-time thing and we've done our duty.  It's meant to be enjoyed, something to look forward to.

3.  We have to open ourself.  Spiritual penetration is not possible until we are open to it.  Um... I think I'll leave it at that.

4.  We have to talk.  (Sorry, guys.)  Spiritual intimacy is the context for conversation about what matters. It builds trust, deepens the bond.

5.  We have to linger.  Not just the act itself, but also the little things shared throughout the day can enhance spiritual union. Solomon talked about his bride "ravishing" him with just one glance.  Whew!  

The topic has been a hot one!!  Here's hoping the spiritual fireworks get ignited...