Humans certainly have a hard time relating the material realm of the universe to the spiritual realm of God. We come to the realization that there IS a higher realm or dimension of living, but with our four-dimensional outlook (three of space and one of time) we have a real difficulty understanding the relationship of these dimensions.
God has to exist in at least one more dimension of space and one dimension of time in order to have created the universe we are in. But science now says that the universe itself contains ten dimensions (nine of space and one of time). So this actually places God in at least a twelve-dimensional realm (ten of space and two of time).
This is too much to comprehend totally. But an analogy can be very helpful.
Picture a computer screen. Mr. and Mrs. Screen are two-dimensional beings confined to the plane of length and width on a computer screen. A three-dimensional being can approach their plane from the depth dimension and place a fingertip a hundredth of a millimeter from the body of either one of them. Despite this close proximity, the Screens would be unable to detect the fingertip’s presence, much less understand and describe its physical characteristics.
We can picture in our mind’s eye the kind of relationship we could develop with some characters we design on a computer screen. Given the right software, we could give them color and animation, and we could create splendid scenes for them to move around in, all the while sending electronic signals to let them know of our presence. In reality, of course, these two-dimensional beings would not possess the capacity to think, feel, and know anything in a physical sense like we do because atoms, molecules, brains, nerves, and so on require three large space dimensions. But, for the sake of the analogy, we can pretend they are able to physically think, feel, and know.
As their designers, we know everything about them. Whatever capacities they possess, we gave them. If we enable them to move about the screen, we know the possibilities and the limits of their mobility. Whether they come to recognize the fact or not, their existence depends entirely on us. They have no control over the power supply, the “on” switch, that keeps electricity flowing into the system that is their universe.
We can imagine the difficulty these screen people would have in comprehending us and relating to us. Could they be certain of our existence? Perhaps reasonably so, if they came to recognize their incapacity to create themselves or anything else in their screen environment, and if they discern that their power source is located outside their realm. Could they perceive our three-dimensionality and how it compares with their two-dimensionality? Given adequate research, they may discover enough about themselves and their environment to recognize that a third dimension must exist for them to exist, but they will never fully comprehend what a difference that third dimension makes, nor will they be able to visualize more than two dimensions at a time.
As close as these characters may come to each other on the screen, they will remain unable to detect certain things about themselves, characteristics that we can easily observe from our three-dimensional perspective. Because we experience depth, we can stand back from them and instantly see their complete outline or shape. All they can perceive of one another are various lines. If they are round, they may figure out that their bodies are circular by carefully moving around one another, but they will not see each other’s circles as we who look on from outside the screen see them. We can program them to rebound off each other and to make a certain sound when they do, but they have only growing or shrinking lines to indicate movement.
Even if we put our hands or faces right up to the screen, perhaps covering them up completely, they cannot see or hear or feel our nearness through the glass barrier. Sending strong vibrations through the glass might only confuse or frighten them – given, of course, that we have endowed them with emotions as well as sense receptors and minds.
We observe something else about the screen people that they can never see. We can see what is inside them. The details and workings of their interior body parts, for example, are fully exposed to us. The amount of information we have about them is at least an order of magnitude (that is, at least a factor of ten times) greater than what any of them possesses.
In this simple analogy, just one dimension separates the screen people from us humans. And yet, the advantage of that one extra dimension suffices to explain how we could be closer to the screen people than they are to each other, fully comprehending them inside and out, while remaining invisible and untouchable to them. Knowing the value of seeing and touching, we could give them the capacity to detect and contact each other, but they would be unable to understand how much more limited these senses are for them than they are for us. They can only detect and contact outer edges, whereas we can see and electronically “touch” every part of them.
God’s dimensional advantage over us goes far beyond this one-dimensional difference. He can operate in at least the twelve dimensions mentioned previously – and even beyond. His capacity to maintain close and comprehensive contact with us – despite our incapacity to experience Him physically through our space-bound dimensions – becomes a comprehensible reality. We cannot begin to picture it, except by analogy, but it does make sense.
Making sense of His nearness (in fact, His living right within us as the Bible states) is more important, for now, than physically sensing His nearness. Pleasure is something our senses can give us, and it is temporary; but joy comes from a source beyond the senses, and it lasts. Pleasure and physical nearness are good, but the joy and nearness available to us in His extra dimensions go immeasurably beyond what we can think or imagine, as His written Word declares. In one sense, God’s invisibility and untouchability keep our yearnings focused where they rightly belong, on the supernatural realm that exists for our benefit now and that awaits us.
The Bible states that upon our death, we will receive new “bodies” with individual identities in the realm to which we are headed, but these bodies will no longer experience fatigue, disease, or decay. Our new bodies will be suited to our new environment. Imagine the screen people’s two-dimensional bodies trying to support the screen people anywhere but on the computer monitor’s surface. Such bodies would simply be too unstable, too limited and limiting. The same could be said of our present bodies in whatever dimensional realm He intends to place us. When we see Him with our own eyes, we will be seeing Him with a new and indescribable sight capacity. All our other capacities will be new, too. In fact, they will in several ways be capacities like His, capacities beyond our comprehension, capacities that enable us to participate fully in His Family.
Yes, God has a relationship to us as humans somewhat like the analogy of our human relationship to the screen people.
The following is a reprint from the November 27, 2006 PTM Update letter.
QUESTION: Recently Elton John made a statement about organized religion, that it should be done away with (how that would be accomplished is beyond me). Undoubtedly there is some truth to his statement that some churches and religious people lack compassion for gays such as himself. My question is, compassion for what? Certainly no one should be judging or condemning gay people. Of course “throwing the book at them” and condemning their lifestyle won’t make them repent of their lifestyle, but rather turn them away from Christianity altogether, and sadly that is what some Christians feel should be done.
My problem with gays is the militant way in which many strongly defend their lifestyle. But I truly believe that we must stay clear of the gay bashing and try to find some common ground with them. I find it a very touchy subject and a real tightrope to try to relate as fellow sinful human beings to them while avoiding them and at the same time somehow befriend them.
ANSWER: Correct - We have had comments and expect more about Elton John’s statement. Before tackling this subject I need to say at the outset that I have been a long time fan (almost 40 years) of Elton John’s music, even though I have known for most of that time of his sexual orientation. I expect to continue to be a fan of his music. A few years ago, for a special occasion, my wife and I went to an Elton John concert, thinking we would enjoy his music, and while we did enjoy his music, we found that we did so in spite of the fact that the staging seemed to be specifically directed at those who participate in the gay lifestyle (which of course my wife and I do not!). So we spent most of the concert glued to our binoculars, from our seats that were so far from the stage, focused only on Elton and his piano, and attempting to avoid all of the other “special effects” and staging.
Undoubtedly some will be upset that I enjoy Elton John’s music, and that I separate his lifestyle from his music. Some readers will feel that I should have stormed out of the concert. Some might say I didn’t because I paid too much for the tickets!?! If another Christian told me that they actually left the very same concert because they were offended, I wouldn’t disagree with their decision (depending on how high-and-mighty and holier-than-thou they acted in telling me what they did, and whether they insisted on trying to impress me about their “no nonsense, I will not put up with that stuff, self-righteousness posturing). If that were the case, then I would feel that they had only found yet another reason to trumpet their righteousness (which is not necessarily the same as God’s), and had they not found a reason for storming out of that concert, they would have found something else – for when we are intent on showing the world that we are holier-than-thou, there will always be opportunities to do so. In retrospect, before God, I do not feel badly about remaining at this concert, enjoying the concert by ignoring the visual effects and concentrating on the music. I have no regrets that I enjoy his music, and will continue to, but I have no plans to attend another of his concerts, even if I am given free tickets.
I share this since you have asked about Elton John, and I feel it is appropriate for me to share some of my own history with Elton John and his music. Some might get upset at the fact that a Christian (if they continue to think of me as a Christian) can enjoy music by a person who is an avowed, practicing homosexual. I would point out that if Christians stopped attending classical concerts, symphonies, concertos and opera simply on the basis of composers and artists who were/are practicing homosexuals, then Christians would attend few events featuring classical music.
I think that we all need to challenge our recrimination, condemnation and judgmentalism. I believe that I am free in Christ to enjoy Elton John’s music – and I will continue to. His “Candle In the Wind” always invokes strong feelings in my soul. However, as I said, I will never again attend one of his concerts for I only wish to enjoy his music, not subject myself to the “alternative lifestyle” trappings that seem to be pushed, at least during the concert we attended.
I would agree with Elton’s comments about oppressive, judgmental religion in the sense that he is talking about judgmentalism and condemnation. In the same interview to which you refer, I was interested to see that he did say that he found the teachings of Jesus to be inspiring. Perhaps that’s a key to reaching people who are so obviously trapped by some sin, dysfunction, addiction – whatever it may be. The best thing we can do for anyone is to direct them to Jesus – for Jesus alone can provide the answer that so many desperately need – including Elton John. May others see our Jesus, not our religious stuff.
Sadly, and this is something all Christians need to take to heart, our own diatribes and invective in the name of God about homosexuals have given many practicing homosexuals the justification they so desperately seek, so that they can feel vindicated, and declare God and the Bible as irrelevant, hateful and vindictive. There is absolutely no biblical warrant for placing practicing homosexuals at the top of some religious hit list of sins (as some in Christendom do), thinking that if we can just get rid of the “gay problem” then we will be one step closer to society being the way it ought to be. After all, if we could just get rid of all sinners, the world would be a better place, wouldn’t it – but then you and I wouldn’t be around would we? A world without sin would be a world without humans. God’s grace does not lead us to hate gays or reserve a special place in hell for them.
On the other hand, it is true that some gays are militant, they push their agenda, they agitate, which ironically seems to be the very thing that some in Christendom do in response to gays. So we have the classical eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth scenario, of which Jesus speaks in the Sermon On the Mount. As Christians, we of course do not condone sin of any kind (including in our own lives whatever that sin may be), and we do not hesitate to draw appropriate boundaries when we feel biblical values are being openly flaunted or compromised. How we do this without being hateful or judgmental is critically important. It seems to me that the secret of doing so is realizing that only Jesus can produce this kind of unflinching, uncompromising, unconditional love in our lives and our behavior.
There is no Christian/biblical reason to condone or promote gay lifestyles – but instead to invite all those who are trapped in the gay lifestyle (along with all of us who are sinners in our own right, in our own way for we all fall short) to repentance and to the spiritual perfection we are offered in Jesus Christ. There is no way that Christians may tell gays that it is OK to be gay, to practice a gay lifestyle – there is every reason that we have to invite them to God’s grace, which means that in Christ the gay lifestyle will be overcome and left behind, for it is not consistent, according to the New Testament, with the new life in Christ that He lives right within us.
Religion only sees truth that it chooses to see. My definition of religion is a system where humans do something within themselves to please God, relying on their own efforts instead of the work God the Father and God the Son have already completed.
There are many religions in the world – many man-made attempts to please a Divine Being. Down through the millennia of man, most people have come to the truth that there is some Divine Being higher than themselves. So they begin their forms of religion by working to please this God or gods.
Yes, there are many religions but only one true FAITH. We Christians believe that Christianity and the three Persons in One God is the true faith.
BUT, WITHIN CHRISTIANITY THERE IS STILL “RELIGION”! From the very inception of the Christian community, there have been many who have attempted to live by my definition of religion given above.
Religion stands against seeing truth in total – Jesus Christ as life. It knows that, if it were to see Jesus Christ in that way, most of its religious structure would end. In Jesus’ day, the religious leaders – priests, Scribes and Pharisees – knew that if they embraced Christ as Messiah, their religious system with all of its positions and pageantry would end, and they would “lose their place” (John 11:48).
The situation in Christianity down through the centuries since then hasn’t changed much. Jesus as Savior is embraced, oh yes. But Jesus Christ as all, in all, who is our only life, is rejected. A system of priests and pageantry was created just as the religion of the Old Testament Jews. Jesus as Savior and His death for our sins was promulgated but the priestly mediation between man and God was reinstituted just as in the Jewish system. But a hierarchy structure of mediation between God and man for the Church established by Jesus Christ was never meant to be.
As seen in the structure of the churches in the book of Acts, groups of Christians would assemble in local congregations with locally elected pastors and leaders of the church. There were only loose connections between local churches.
Down through the ages, many abuses developed in the organized church because of the hierarchy structure and the need to keep power within it. The church preached celibacy of the clergy but the majority of the clergy did not live celibate.
In our present age, much has come to light about the abuse of minors by church clergy. Unfortunately this crime – and that is its proper name – has been an open wound on the Body of Christ for as far back as records are kept. History shows that in practically every century since the organized church began, the problem of clerical abuse of minors was not just lurking in the shadows but so open at times that extraordinary means had to be taken to quell it.
At the Protestant Reformation Martin Luther and the other major reformers such as Calvin and Zwingli all rejected mandatory celibacy. The rejection was motivated in great part by what the reformers saw as widespread everyday evidence that clergy of all ranks commonly violated their vows with women, men, and young boys. In reference to life in the monasteries on the eve of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation, Elizabeth Abbott in “A History of Celibacy” says that the monks’ “lapses” with women, handsome boys, and each other “became so commonplace that they could not be considered lapses but ways of life for entire communities.” Up to this time, the church’s ecclesiastical leaders continued to advocate the long-standing remedies of legislation, spiritual penalties, physical penalties, and warnings, none of which worked.
In rejecting celibacy, the reformers attacked the theological basis of the discipline, arguing that it had no foundation in Scripture or ancient tradition. The major force, however, was moral outrage. Living in the midst of a clerical world of non-celibate behavior, the reformers believed that it caused moral corruption.
An attempt at conciliatory legislation was made at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) but this legislation was hardly original in any way. It provided no reason to presume that it would be any more successful in getting clerics to accept celibacy than had prior laws of the church.
This council, however, was able to bring about a far greater observance of celibacy than any other, at least for a time. The reason was not in the canons themselves but in another conciliatory innovation, namely the establishment of seminary education for prospective priests. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, the education of candidates for the priesthood was uneven and random. Parish priests had little more education than the people they served. The learned among the clergy were generally not those priests dealing directly with the people but those who belonged to the monastic orders.
While the seminaries were responsible for an initial reduction in the widespread violations of clerical celibacy, They also had a long-lasting downside of a profound though not so obvious nature. They isolated prospective clergy from an early age to the time of ordination in an all-male environment. Formation in celibacy involved convincing the young men that life without sex of any kind was highly preferable to marriage. The spiritual benefits were openly promoted while the practical consequences remained mysteriously unspoken yet ever present and operative. Celibacy presented a path to spiritual superiority, which in turn supported the mystique that the clergy were somehow made of much stronger moral fiber to be able to withstand the urges of the flesh and devote themselves so totally to God. This mystique further isolated clergy and fortified the clerical caste as a social and religious elite. All positions of power were filled by celibate clergy.
The reformers understood the problems within the clergy of the organized church – the prevalence of non-celibate behavior along with doctrinal errors concerning salvation by faith AND works. But the reformers continued the error of having a hierarchy structure within their new churches. This is where the problem was from the beginning but the reformers failed to recognize this basic failure.
So just as the original organized church built a man-made hierarchy structure of religion, so also did the reformers perpetuate it.
Am I saying that those Christians within organized hierarchy-type churches are not saved? No. There are saved people everywhere throughout Christianity. Anyone who truly believes in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is born again. But the problem for those in hierarchy systems becomes their supposed need for priestly mediators between God and man and their need of much law structure to work to please God.
Am I saying that Christianity has always been a “religion”? Much of it has, as I have demonstrated. But throughout history there have always been local churches which have kept basically to the local structure of the first century apostolic churches. These local congregations were often persecuted by the organized church as “heretics”. The organized church usually became agitated when someone endeavored to challenge the apparent mixing of law and grace of the hierarchy body of doctrine and teaching.
These so-called “heretics”, in many cases, understood 1) that there should be no priestly hierarchy creating a power structure 2) that Christ comes to actually live in a born again person and 3) that we cannot ever please the Father by our human works, but the Father accepts us and saves us strictly on Christ living in us and when the Father looks at a born again Christian, He sees only the righteousness of Christ living in union with the human Christian.
So I say: religion is not God’s way. And there is much religion right within Christianity. Watch out for it.
For two articles on the same subject, read "Watch Out For Religion" here, and "Simply Christ" here.
Have you ever considered that there just wasn’t any room in the lives of the people associated with Jesus of Nazareth for the things that God had planned?
At the very beginning, there was NO ROOM for Joseph in the conception of Jesus for it was determined that He would be conceived by the Holy Spirit.
An out-of-wedlock pregnancy was such a scandal in that culture that there was NO ROOM for Joseph and Mary in society.
When Mary was ready to deliver Jesus, there was NO ROOM with a clean or warm environment in the inn, so a barnyard had to do.
King Herod heard that a king was going to be born in Bethlehem, and Herod wasn’t ready to give up his throne. Just to be sure this pretender to his throne would be “taken care of”, King Herod ordered all the boys in Bethlehem two years old and under to be killed. As far as Herod was concerned, there was NO ROOM for Jesus in Bethlehem.
There was NO ROOM in Judea (the people to whom he had come) so the family had to move to Egypt, one of the places most despised by Jews. The name of Egypt itself was synonymous with brutal suffering and slavery inflicted on the Jews centuries earlier.
As Jesus grew to maturity and began His public ministry, He was criticized by the Jewish leaders for His claim to be the Son of God. There was NO ROOM for Jesus in God-fearing, church-going religious society. For some people there was NO ROOM even for Jesus’ miracles since it was claimed that they were powered by the devil.
In Gethsemane Jesus sweated blood in anticipation of His coming horrible death, but there was NO ROOM, no wiggle-room out of the will of God and He accepted it.
When it came time for Jesus’ delivery to the Romans for execution, Jesus stopped His followers (especially Peter with his sword) from blocking the process. There was NO ROOM in the plan of God for any hindrances.
Through all of Jesus’ questioning by the authorities, there was NO ROOM for any rebuttal.
In all the bloody pain of the scourging and crucifixion, there was NO ROOM for mercy.
On the morning of the resurrection, Jesus came out of His tomb because there was NO ROOM for His continued death in the plan of God.
Why did He come anyway knowing that there would be NO ROOM for Him?
Jesus came to MAKE ROOM for us even though He knew He would be greeted with the “no vacancy” sign at every turn and corner of His physical, earthly life.
As a lyric in “Mary Did You Know” goes, “Did you know this child that you delivered would soon deliver you?”
He came anyway even though there was NO ROOM for Him, because His death and resurrection MADE ROOM for every person to accept His sacrifice, to accept His Lordship, and to be born again in eternal union with Himself.
Yourself first??? Why isn’t that what the Bible calls “pride” – one of the seven deadly sins? No, it is not pride for a CHRISTIAN to love himself!
The Word of God tells us that the whole Law is about loving God, loving others and loving ourselves. “. . . You shall love your neighbor AS YOURSELF” presupposes that you love yourself. It implies that you can only love others to the extent that you love yourself. We are deceived if we accept any form of self-hate. Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians, assumes that we love our bodies and will cherish and nourish them (chapter 5:28-29).
Mental health providers say that one of the most common problems they encounter with people who seek psychotherapy is guilt. People feel guilty concerning their thoughts and actions involving many situations and circumstances. They can feel guilty over what they have done, what they haven’t done, or even just over who they are.
For many, there is a genuine reluctance to make self-enhancing or even self-protective choices. They have a strong tendency to put themselves down and even may fear the repercussions of taking action to meet their own needs. This is not a rare condition, confined just to people who seek psychotherapy - most people suffer from self-rejection to some degree. One reason for all this self-neglecting and self-defeating behavior is the way we were programmed as children and as Christians. Born separated from God, we do not know who we are, what our worth is, or what to do with our life. We look to “significant others” to mirror to us the answers to these questions.
Our view of ourselves is formed by our relationships with these people. So we end up treating ourselves - and others - as we were treated. If we were conditionally accepted, neglected, abused or abandoned as children, we are likely to conditionally accept, neglect, abuse or abandon ourselves. The rejected end up rejecting themselves.
If our needs were not recognized and met by our caregivers, we have difficulty recognizing and meeting these needs in ourselves. If a caring parent was not modeled for us so that we can internalize a caring parent, we have little to draw upon to care for ourselves.
But as Christians, many of us have been conditioned to believe that self-love is of the flesh and not of the Spirit. Self-care and assertiveness are seen as self-centered and aggressive. Providing for oneself is seen as depriving others. The Bible talks of living “according to the way of the flesh” as opposed to living “according to the way of the Spirit.” TOO OFTEN, “SELF” AND “FLESH” ARE USED INTERCHANGEABLY, so that our view of the basic self is that it is sinful at the core.
At our new birth as Christians when Christ comes to live right within us in a living union together, our true “self” becomes this living union of God and man. Our “self” becomes this mysterious two-person union – AND WE ARE TO LOVE AND CHERISH THIS UNION FOREVER.
As Christians, fearing that our appetites will dominate us if we indulge them, we seek relief from our guilt and fear by denying ourselves while providing for others – sometimes even to the point of letting others abuse and exploit us as we turn the other cheek, and by giving while we refuse to receive in return.
For many of us there is an unspoken acceptance of self-imposed martyrdom and self-belittlement as the epitome of spiritual maturity and godliness. Sadly, many dedicated Christians live a life full of “shoulds” in regard to the needs of others, but with little awareness of their own needs. A GODLY LIFE IS A BALANCE BETWEEN NEEDS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
Probably the greatest opposition to self-love is self-guilt. Guilt serves a very important function in human beings who are all born separated from God. The process of trying to live by your own human strengths and failing because of your human weaknesses is MEANT to bring on guilt. People are drawn toward God’s wisdom and strength by this guilt over their inability to live a properly moral life. Some have to sink deeper into their own guilt than others and take longer times to recognize their need for a Savior, but the workings of guilt are a driving force toward God and, specifically toward Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
But after conversion and new birth in union with Christ, GUILT HAS SERVED ITS PURPOSE. There is no such thing as a “guilty” child in God’s Family! When the Father looks at you in union with Christ, He sees only the righteousness of Christ - your guilt has been removed at Calvary. Guilt for past sins, guilt for present sins, guilt for any future sins has all been eradicated.
You may say, “But what am I supposed to feel when I slip and sin as a Christian? Isn’t it guilt?” No, because guilt produces insecurity about the future. And God wants us to know a secure union with Christ.
The proper response for Christian sin is to say, “I‘m sorry, Father! This just shows me once again that your child needs you. I was not created with the human ability to control my own life. Whatever talents I have are for Your use, and my human weaknesses are to drive me to a closer awareness of my living union with You through Christ.”
This godly sorrow has nothing to do with guilt. Jesus Christ within you paid the penalty for all of our guilt and we have been declared “not guilty”. GUILT REQUIRES PUNISHMENT. But God does not punish His children. GODLY SORROW REQUIRES CORRECTION. God DOES correct us (see Hebrews 12:5-11).
For a model of self-love, let‘s examine the life of Jesus. Did Jesus take care of Himself at all, or did He proceed from one act of self-denial to the next? With a careful reading of the Gospels, we see that Jesus guarded His rest and prayer time, asked for assistance and support, said “No” to people, including family members, exercised the right to change His mind, pursued His mission despite domestic conflict, protected Himself from danger, and set limits to protect His mission.
Jesus did not hesitate to declare who He was. Knowing His worth, He received true expressions of deference and adoration, and did not feel guilty when expensive gifts were “wasted” on Him. Jesus advised His disciples to get away from tending to others for a while and rest, to be both wise and harmless, and to stay at the homes of “worthy” people while traveling to preach the good news.
Jesus taught on how to confront a believer who sins against us. He confronted situations, even when doing so was likely to “hurt feelings”. In Gethsemane, Jesus was not afraid to ask His Father for what He wanted (three times, no less!). However, at the appropriate time He was prepared to surrender His will to the Father, for the sake of love. He exemplified beautifully the balance between assertiveness and retaliation during His inquisition by the High Priest. Struck by a frustrated officer, Jesus turned the other cheek, and then He squarely confronted the officer for his sin. For Jesus, meekness was never weakness. He never advocated that we should try to keep the peace at all cost. On the contrary, He stated that He did not come to earth to bring peace, but a sword. His motive for helping people was His compassion for them, not people-pleasing, fear of rejection, or a thirst for power.
As these examples show, Jesus took care of Himself physically, psychologically and spiritually, and His instructions to His followers were to do the same. He knew His power, accepted it and used it as He was led by His Father. He was aware of His needs and responsibilities, and exercised them both as needed. Jesus loved, respected and took care of Himself, setting us an example of one who loves God, loves Himself, and loves others.
So what is “loving ourselves”? Is it self-centeredness? Or is a healthy self-love necessary for wholeness? Loving ourselves means that we agree with God that who He made us to be is very good. Seeing our uniqueness as “very good” leads to humility, a more or less accurate perception of our strengths, limitations, woundings and weaknesses. Together with the love of God and the love of others, loving ourselves sustains us as we cultivate our talents and the different parts of our personalities, as well as pursue our (Christ’s!) interests. It enables us to accept our limitations, collaborate with God on our defects, and love our wounded parts into health.
When we love ourselves, we are also able to relate to others more and more honestly. We can let go of attempts to control and manipulate them into giving us what we should be giving to ourselves. We can attach, without becoming overly dependent or parasitic. We can interact without taking out on others frustrations that erupt from inner conflicts and self-hate. As we satisfy our legitimate hungers and work through our hurts, we are more at peace and better able to tune into others’ state of need and to reach out to them.
And, yes, there always come times when the Lord asks us to sacrifice ourselves and put others’ needs above some of our own. Healthy self-sacrifice, however, always occurs in a context of self-love and self-respect. WE KNOW OUR WORTH AND OUR RIGHTS, BUT WE ARE WILLING TO PUT OUR RIGHTS ASIDE FOR A SEASON, AS GOD PROMPTS US TO DO IT.
So in addition to our emphasis on love for God and others, we must point to the loving ourselves part of the Good News and continue to accept His work on our recovery from our own self-rejection.
The TV commercial which ends with the phrase, “You are worth it!” is true for Christians, even though it has been very misapplied to things of the world. You are a born again child in God’ s Family.
“There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus” (John 3:1)
Nicodemus was the first person ever to hear the ultimate message of how the Father would place another life in the human being. His story and more – particularly his reaction to Christ’s message – are imperative to the believer’s understanding of the difference between true Christianity and “religion”.
By all worldly standards, Nicodemus was a wise man. Our Lord had discerned that such a man as this should be the recipient of the introduction of the concept of a new race of human beings on this earth. Nicodemus was highly trained, well-educated, and heavily entrenched in Jewish religion.
The message that Christ was to bring to this man, as well as to the whole world, was not a message of doctrinal points, nor ecclesiastic rituals and ideas, nor laws, but it was a message of LIFE. The time was at hand when God the Father would proceed with His original and ultimate intention which was the placing of His own nature, by the person of Christ, into human beings (Ephesians 1:4).
For 1700 years, God had dealt only with Jews through the Law and had proven during that period of time that they could not keep the whole Law and, therefore, could not please God. Now it was time to tell Israel, as well as the whole world, that the only way human beings can ever have the fullness of God’s righteousness would be to have another life placed in them – a life which was in total union and obedience to the Father.
Thus, Nicodemus is chosen by Jesus as a representative character. He is religion personified. He is the epitome of all that men do to try to please God by religion. Jesus is revealing to Nicodemus that God does not want man to do anything to prove himself pleasing to Him, but rather God will do something in man which will cause man only to have “to be” rather than “to do.”
“He came to Jesus by night, and said to Him, ‘Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that you do except God be with him’” (John 3:2).
This statement shows that Nicodemus was not ready to put himself on the line as a knower or believer in Christ because he used the general term “we”. He was still holding back a little – he could not embrace the Savior fully and completely because the authorization had not come from his peer group or governing body. We also see that Nicodemus, with all of his knowledge, is still bent on do-er religion since he had only seen what Jesus had done and not who He was. What Jesus wanted Nicodemus to see was that Jesus had been birthed by God as God’s firstborn Son on this earth (with many more sons to follow) and was Israel’s Messiah.
“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’” (John 3:3).
It is no time to talk about how Jesus is a teacher or a miracle-worker, or to talk about Israel and her needs. The only thing that is going to make a difference in this world is the core message which Jesus must bring at this time. Not only is it the only hope for mankind to be saved and to gain eternal life, but it holds in its truth the seed which rules the whole universe. Ephesians 1:4 declares, “According as He has chosen us IN CHRIST before the foundation of the world.”
At this very moment, there stood before Nicodemus this One Who had been supernaturally birthed by God the Father, and it was now time for Christ to announce to the world the unbelievable message that would radically transcend the third dimension and bring about God’s original intention.
It is announced, with finality over Moses’ Law, over Judaism, and over all God’s dealings with religious Israel, that the only way anyone can ever please God is to be BORN AGAIN.
The whole idea of a new birth is beyond the comprehension of Nicodemus. But now and forever, the message is brought to the world and to the governing seat of religion, that it is not works that we do, nor any doing at all that will bring about the plan of God, but rather, “You must be born again.”
The thought goes beyond all finite comprehension because this is the first time in the history of creation that there has ever been any break in God’s operation of life and nature. Up until this time, every birthing that had taken place had required a natural father placing his sperm into a mother’s ovum; by the union of the two, there was produced another person. Every seed had brought forth fruit of its kind. But now, for the first time in history, the God-Son has announced to all creatures that God intends that there must be another kind of birthing. This new birthing would have a new father, not of this earth, not of natural men, but solely from the Spirit of God.
This meant that no creature had true life until that birthing took place, for sinners were dead in their sin. The reason for the universe and its creation was to bring about this new creature, a believer in whom Christ is the only life. The way and means for this whole new people to come about would be “another birthing”. These people were to be a new race with a new Father, able to live a new kind of life upon this earth.
It is necessary that men be born again; otherwise, they will keep extending what God had previously done in the Scriptures, which is the basis for manmade religion. Neither Abraham nor Moses nor David nor anyone else in the Old Testament ever knew or understood this concept that God was going to birth His own children on earth. God was going to place His very own nature in the creature. From that time on, He would depend on His own nature rather than anything the creature could produce by himself.
Finally, we can summarize the character of the birthing very simply. It is not reformation of the outer man. It is not education of the natural man. It is not purification of the old man. But it is the creation of a whole new man, a new race.
The phrase Jesus used, “You must be born again,” is used outside of this context with Nicodemus only one other time in the Scriptures: Peter makes the same statement in 1 Peter 1:23. It is mentioned nowhere else in the Scripture.
However, the greatest teacher and enunciator of what it meant to be born again was the apostle Paul. Paul coined another term concerning what it meant to be born again: “…in Christ”. Paul uses the phrase “in Christ” or its equivalent over 50 times in his letters. And Paul stresses that “in Christ” is also equivalent to the “mystery of Christ in you” (Colossians 1:27); and to “…Christ lives in me…” (Galatians 2:20).
Ultimately, what the birthing afforded was the bringing about of a whole new race of people. The great difference between this new race and religionists is that religionists are still trying to perfect the old race while Christ in believers is bringing about a new creation life utterly above and beyond religious living.
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
Ironically, the most often-quoted verse of Scripture in all religious circles is John 3:16. Yet so often religion, which has glossed over the birthing, is ignorant of the fact that this very verse was spoken to the greatest personification of religion in the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth.
What was it that made the Father come up with such an unbelievable plan in the first place? It was love. He wanted to bestow His love upon His own birthed sons and daughters – members by birth of His own Family containing His very divine nature.
This is why true Christianity (the birthing of a new race) stands over and above the religions of the world. These religions can only pursue love by means of law. Religion would confine the message of the love of God to those who believe the collection of scriptures which constitute its singular doctrines.
When Jesus speaks the message of love to Nicodemus, He says it plainly, “God so loved [loves] the world”, not just a few, not just Jews, not just Gentiles, but God so loves everyone who has come into the world.
It must have been a very solemn life for Nicodemus after the confrontation with Jesus – solemn by the fact that he now had certain information put into him by Jesus which was contrary to everything he believed and had been taught. Prior to this time, the only way men could please God was by their obeying the law and, in sin, offering the sacrifice of an innocent substitute of lamb, goat, bullock, or turtle-dove. Divine purpose was now unfolding for him. The love of Christ flows at this point because He lets Nicodemus know that, even though this is a whole new plan of God to go into operation by the birthing, His purpose in this world is not to condemn Nicodemus, the Jews, Israel, or religion, but rather to bring about eternal salvation for all people.
A Chronological Harmony of the Book of Acts and the Letters of Paul
Understanding Paul’s letters is greatly enhanced when we read them in the order he wrote them.
In about 300 A.D. Paul’s epistles were arranged in the order of how long the letter was. As a result, Romans came first because it was Paul’s longest letter. Philemon came last because it was his shortest letter. As a result, for 1700 years we have been reading Paul’s letters in a chaotic order.
Here is the traditional order of Paul’s thirteen letters: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon. This is not the way Paul’s letters were written.
For you comparison, here is the order in which Paul actually wrote his letters: Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy.
In which way would you rather study Paul’s letters? In this order: 6,4,5,1,8,10,7,2,3,11,13,12,9 that is, the order in your New Testament index, or in the order Paul wrote them: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13.
Now let’s look at the dates.
The dates Paul actually wrote his thirteen letters: A.D.50,51,51,56,57,58,63,63,63,64,65,65,68.
But the order of dates in you New Testament is: A.D.58,56,57,50,63,64,63,51,51,65,68,65,63.
As we read in the book of Acts, it would be well to stop at certain times to interweave the epistles into the storyline.
Stop after Acts 2:36 and read the book of Hebrews (authorship uncertain, probably Paul) to get the flavor of Israel’s law pointing to Paul’s gospel of grace.
Stop after Acts 12:2 and read the epistles of James and Jude, brothers of Jesus.
Stop after Acts 15:23 and read Galatians.
Stop after Acts 17:9 and read 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians.
Stop after Acts 18:17 and read 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians and Romans. STUDY Romans. Paul explains as best he can the process of conversion and new birth in Christ.
Stop after Acts 19:41 and read Colossians and Ephesians.
Stop after Acts 20:6 and read Philemon and Philippians.
Stop after Acts 20:28 and read 1 Timothy, Titus and 2 Timothy.
Then stop after the end of the book of Acts and read 1 and 2 Peter and 1, 2 and 3 John which were written in the 60’s A.D.
You will get a greater understanding of the context of the epistles when read in chronological order.
