Monthly Archives: February 2016

Experience Provides the Proof

Elisha asked for a double-portion of Elijah’s prophetic anointing.  With a response that sounds a bit like he was scratching his head wondering if this could be possible, Elijah told Elisha, “If you see me when I am taken, it will be granted” (2 Kings 2.10).

When Elijah was taken up in the whirlwind Elisha saw it and picked up the cloak that Elijah had dropped.  While there was no physical indication that anything had changed, Elisha was faced with the choice.  Would he test the word of the Prophet to prove whether it would be true?

He had seen Elijah remove his cloak, roll it up, hit the water to make a dry passage across the river bed.  So that was the way he tested to see if he’d been given the double-portion.  Hitting the water with the cloak was a physical act that caused a supernatural response.  When the water parted, Elisha knew that things had changed.

Elijah then had to apply belief that this initial experience provided proof that the request was granted – he would need to apply faith to the expectation that he would see the fullness of the double-portion.

Elisha could have doubted, and allowed his doubt to stop him from testing the promise.  What if it doesn’t work?  What if the water doesn’t part and the other prophets see me?

Sometimes, the only way to find out if what we’ve requested has been granted is through trying.   Experience usually requires taking a risk.

God’s Will & Jesus’ Teaching

I really like the way Jesus taught. Frequently I come across something Jesus said that makes me smile. So often he would say something that would be stated a challenge to some, but to someone else, the same statement was an invitation.

One instance is from John 7.16 where he said, “My Teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. If anyone chooses to do God’s will he will find out whether my teaching comes from God.”

Jesus was responding to the peoples’ amazement at his teaching. In his humility, he said that what he spoke wasn’t something he came up with himself, but had originated with God the Father. The challenge was that anyone who wanted to explore more of this teaching would be invited to pursue God’s will to do so.

What I find interesting about this invitation is the way it challenges us to test while, at the same time, invites us to pursue the will of God. But the only way we can truly know the will of God is to do what Jesus taught – then we’ll come to know whether his teaching comes from God.

Again, it comes back to the necessity of our lived experience that enables us to prove the will of God.

It is not through agreeing with what we’ve heard, or even saying that we believe what we’ve heard that validates the teacher, but only by putting into practice what we’ve heard. Only by testing the teaching can we stand over our belief or agreement in the teaching.

Proving the Kingdom

When King Saul wanted young David to wear his armour before going out to confront Goliath, David responded:   “No, I cannot wear this. I have not proved it.”

David did not want to wear the armour because he didn’t have any experience in wearing or using such equipment. He was not used to it. He had not tested it. He had not proven its effectiveness.

As we use something and experience it’s effectiveness we can stand over it; vouch for its value; be confident in its functionality; prove its worth.

 

The biblical language is similar to what Paul used in Romans 12.2.

“…be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve the will God…” (NIV)

God has an expectation that, as our minds are renewed, we will learn his will to the extent that we can recognise it, test it, stand over it and approve it.

While it is good to hear teaching and grow familiar with biblical doctrine; have I ‘proven’ it for myself?

While it is helpful to be around others and learn from their ministry experiences; have I ‘proven’ it for myself?

This implies that life will provide opportunities to experience the benefits of God’s will as we make decisions through daily living. In applying God’s Word to every-day circumstances, we learn to ‘prove’ the truth of his Word and experience the benefits of recognising his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Family in the Kingdom

Many of us have a perception of God that is quite different from who he actually is. Even though I grew up in a churched culture the way I thought about God was not the way I now understand He has revealed himself through Scripture.

Society has carved out an image of God in which he is perceived as harsh, vindictive, self-centred and angry.  Ironically, though, the society which has created that image also exhibits the habits and lifestyle patterns of a spiritually fatherless generation.

God has always been about family.  From the outset his intention was that mankind would be fruitful and multiply – and maintain their relationship with him. After mankind turned away (Gen 3) God did not give up.  His promise to Abraham was to, through him, establish a nation and that meant Abraham having an heir (Gen 12.2-3; 15.4).  Throughout Old Testament history, God spoke of ‘his people’ (Ex 19.4-6) his dwelling with them (1 Chron 22.10), caring for those without families (Ps 67.5-6) and his desire for his people to bless all nations (Is 61.1-11).

The most clear example we have of God is through the life of Jesus who was the perfect representation of God (Hb 1.3) and all who saw or heard Jesus had seen the Father (Jn 5.19,14.9).

Jesus spoke of God as Father (Jn 15.1, 9; Mk 1.36).  He explained that we become a child of God (Mt 6.32, 7.11) through the relationship we have with him (Mt 28.20; Jn 16.13).  Jesus also spoke of the house that God the Father is preparing for us (Jn 14.2).  The New Testament authors reinforced the concept of family (1 Tim 3.5) and the household of God (1 Pt 4.17).

Love, Fight or Flight

Jesus used a story about a man who was attacked, beaten, robbed and left injured on a roadside. The ones we would expect to have mercy and help were the ones who didn’t stop to help him. The reasons (excuses) implied in the story could well have been related to their religious traditions.

Even if we give them the benefit of doubt, and presume they didn’t act because they believed their action would put them in some form of danger, difficulty or inconvenience; at best we can see their worldview was flawed because they chose not to help someone in need, even though they had the opportunity to do so.

The other side of this can be found in John 16.2 when Jesus warned his followers of the harm that would likely come to them at the hands of others. He says, “…a time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God.”

Now we have a group of people who are completely committed to God – so much so, that they are willing to kill another person and consider it a service to God.  In this instance their worldview makes it permissible to inflict harm on another person because of the difference of belief, teaching or practice of devotion to God.

In the first instance (Lk 10.31) the religious worldview chose to ignore someone who had been harmed, but in the second instance (Jn 16.2) the religious worldview chose to inflict harm.   Both operated from a worldview that was based in some form of devotion to God and both felt they were justified in their decision.  BUT, Jesus made it clear that both were wrong.  In Luke 10.37 he said they didn’t demonstrate love and in John 16.3 he said those people don’t know him or the Father.

While it may be easy to hear of these two negative extremes and respond with something like, “Oh, I would never do that.” It may be helpful to take time for critical reflection.

  • Have we ever chosen not to act when we could have done something to help another person who was in need?
  • Have we ever distanced ourselves from someone because we were uncomfortable with their opinions or personality?
  • Have we ever inflicted harm (emotional, psychological, physical or spiritual) on another person because we did not agree with their position on something?

We’re familiar with the defence mechanisms of Fight or Flight.  In relationships we employ these through the manoeuvres of Attack or Withdraw.  It is important to remember that these mechanisms are based in fear.  If we operate from fear, we are not operating from love.

The first group mentioned above operated in Flight.  They were, in some way, afraid of what would happen if they got involved so they withdrew from the situation.  The second group operated in Fight.  They were afraid of someone expressing their love for God differently from their own and their means of dealing with this fear was to attack (or kill).

Neither expression is borne out of love.  Love does not kill; love does not ignore people in need; love does not fear.  Perfect love casts out fear.