"God is Energy..."

  This theological hypothesis will likely be controversial for several reasons, but it is one which fits all the data so far. It is also what is in the back of my mind when I have been describing the “what” of God. My hypothesis is that what we call “energy” is actually God, or some aspect of God. In the Holy Scriptures, Jesus says explicitly, “God is Spirit”. It is my contention that we could justifiably render this as, “God is Energy.” He is not a particular kind of energy. He is energy itself: zero-point, kinetic, potential, heat, light, and every other expression of energy are all different expressions of His energy.  

According to the Liddell-Scott lexicon, the word translated as “spirit,”“pneuma,” literally means "blast of air" or "wind," and thus also by extension breath. It is translated into Latin as "spiritus" which also literally means "breath" or "wind." More broadly it describes that which animates a living body, and thus English "spirit" from Latin "spiritus." It is this broader understanding of pneuma to which I was referring as the modern concept of "energy" possibly being a valid translation. "Pneuma" in Greek thought is immortal (see 1 Corinthians 15). Energy cannot be created or destroyed. "Pneuma" is unseen yet can have a powerful effect wherever it goes (see John 3). Energy itself is also unseen unless it manifests in certain visible forms like light or flame, and it can clearly have a powerful effect when it is released even from something as small as an atom. So, if we were to use this modern understanding, if we were to translate the word for “spirit” in the Holy Scriptures, we could justifiably translate it as “energy”.

Einstein's physics says energy is interchangeable with matter (E=MC²). At some point in time in the last thirty years, one theory has stood out among all the others as a potential contender for Grand Unification. This theory states that all particles of matter and all particles which transmit energy are actually ridiculously tiny (10-33cm) one (or multi-) dimensional strings or knots of energy that vibrate with a particular spin and frequency like the strings of a guitar. How they vibrate determines what kind of a particle they become. This essentially means that the entire creation can be described as a complex tapestry of vibrations of energy.

The 1st law of thermodynamics says energy can't be created or destroyed, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics says it will eventually return to a static, placid state (what's not so euphemistically called the “heat death” of the universe). The study of what is called zero point energy is fascinating in that it reveals that the entire universe (and beyond into the multiverse) is virtually bathed in energy and even when all heat is removed from particles at absolute zero, energy can still be detected (thus the reason why helium will never attain a solid form).  In spite of all this, virtually every science textbook still defines energy somewhat underwhelmingly as “the ability to do work.” 

The truth is that for all that we know energy can do, and how it is literally the foundation of all of creation (to this day particles pop in and out of existence due to the quantum fluctuations of zero point energy), we have no idea “what” it actually is. We know that it is omnipresent, eternal, animates all life, and required for everything that exists to exist. If you accept the modern physics notion of multiple universes existing in a multiverse (nope, not science fiction anymore folks; welcome to the 21st century), then the amount of energy must also by nature be infinite in an infinite multiverse. 

Is it so difficult to consider that the very thing which animates everything and all life is itself animate and even possibly conscious? And if Energy itself, or Himself, is animate and conscious, it would by virtue of its infinite omnipresence be both omniscient, and omnipotent.

Consider the descriptions given in Holy Scripture, “God is Light” (1 John 1:5), “Our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29), and consider the displays of energy produced when God let Moses see “Him” as much as was possible without killing the prophet Exodus 33:18-23. Consider Moses who, in Exodus 34:29-35, spent so much time in the manifest presence of God that his face glowed so bright he had to wear a veil. Consider the physical manifestation of God’s presence, the Shekinah Glory, between the cherubim above the Ark of the Covenant in the Tabernacle and later, Solomon’s Temple (2 Chronicles 7:1-2). Consider also the transfiguration of Jesus in the Gospels where He essentially lights up like the Sun (Matthew 17:1-3), or the description of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man in the books of Daniel (Daniel 7:9-13) and Revelation (Revelation 1:12-16) where He appears like a bright, shining, human form, nuclear reaction. Every time we see God manifesting Himself in some way in the Old Testament and at certain points in the New Testament, we see manifestations of energy described: powerful heat, light, and electrical energies are all described whenever Yahweh chooses to let anyone see Him in some “avatar” form akin to His “true glory”.

If God is not energy, then there is something in existence that we call “energy” which is also infinite, omnipresent, transcendent, uncreated, eternal, as well as imminent which exists next to Him that is not Him in any way. This latter idea is completely contrary to what Holy Scripture teaches, and is, at its very root, heretical to Christian orthodoxy.

It is, admittedly, only a hypothesis, but one which I believe reflects the Holy Scriptures, and has great explanatory power on a number of levels.

I suppose my theology on God could be considered monist, panentheist, as well as Trinitarian monotheist all at the same time. Though where the monism is concerned, I would argue that there is a difference between the wave or vibration and the medium it moves through. The wave or vibration is a disturbance in the medium occurring at a certain frequency and amplitude, but it is not the medium itself. The air can exist without the sound, but the sound cannot exist without the air. God can exist without us, but we cannot exist without God. We are not gods, neither are we God, but neither we nor any part of the creation can exist at all without His Existence.

This view is something I find no contradiction with, and something I find best reflects the Being described in the pages of Holy Scripture within whom we live and move and exist (Acts 17:28), and by and for whom everything was created and who is also before everything and within whom everything was set together (Colossians 1:16-17). Isaiah spends chapter after chapter recording God's commentary on there being no one like Him. In Psalm 139, it's clear that the place doesn't exist where God is not, the very definition of omnipresence. 

And we know from the statements of Scripture that He created the sky and the land, the heavens as well as the earth and everything in them. This of necessity includes the entire universe we find ourselves in, and should it be true, the multiverse our universe is only one part of which, as it is potentially expanding infinitely, then He Himself must also be infinite because He must always be greater than His creation. He is First and Last, Alpha and Omega, neither created nor destroyed.

    It occurs to me that, distilling down the arguments against this idea, the fear is that I am making God out to be less than He is. I really don't see it that way. By establishing that what we call energy is actually God or the Being of God I am affirming and establishing His total omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, transcendence (his being completely other than His creation), imminence (His being completely intimate and present with His creation), immutability (that is, energy always remains energy regardless of what form it takes), eternity (cannot be created or destroyed), and infinity (in an infinite multiverse, there must be an infinite amount of energy). By establishing that what we call energy is actually God, I am establishing that He is totally and absolutely greater than anything and everything in all of creation as well as being the foundation and underpinning of that creation through which everything lives, moves, and exists. By stating that all He must do to create is to disturb His "surface," so to speak, and create vibrations or waves which result in quarks and universes, I am affirming the Biblical understanding that He only need "speak" and creation happens. 

    Far from placing limits on God, I am affirming His total sovereignty, mastery, and power over everything, and His total uniqueness. There is no one and nothing like Him in existence. Energy is not created. It cannot be created. There will never be any more or less energy than there is right now, and there never has been. This is the first law of thermodynamics. There is only one Existence according to Scripture which fits that description.

Personally, I find it a comfort that no matter where I go, no matter what I do, He is always right there by virtue of the fact He will never be anywhere else relative to me because I couldn't exist without Him. If I do not sense Him, it is because I am not paying attention, not because He is absent, and all I need do is turn my attention back to Him.

Blizzard, World of Warcraft, and Causing Harm to Those We Don't Know

      Within American Christianity at least, there's this mentality of salvation being entirely for one's own benefit That is, our entire reasoning about it is selfish. But what we say and do affects others. Helpful words and actions affect them positively, and harmful words and actions affect them negatively. If I am hurtful to the person next to me, the anger and hurt generated within that person is likely to carry to how he or she interacts with someone else, or many others. Our helpful or hurtful actions and words ripple out from us to others, and even others not within our own circle of acquaintances, those we have never met. Thus a kind word or an unkind word to a single person might affect hundreds if not thousands or more. As an inherently sinful people (to use traditional terminology) who can do nothing but sin, we risk harm to others with every word or action which originates from our own natures or natural psychology. Something a single person might say or do can have a global impact without them realizing it.

     A good study of this is the current situation with Blizzard and World of Warcraft. A very few people within the company did and said harmful things to their subordinates. The harm however did not end with those subordinates. As of this writing, the future of World of Warcraft is in doubt. This seems like a small, insignificant thing, but this game spawned a community of millions of real people who develop for it, create content for and about it, meet and keep lasting friends within it (I remember one article in the BBC about a kid with ALS whose entire social life was on WoW, and whose guildmates mourned him so deeply they flew in from many different countries to attend his funeral much to the surprise of his parents), and even earn their livelihoods from playing it and reporting on it. Every single one of their lives has been impacted by the revelation of the harmful behavior committed by those executives at Blizzard. People who, for the most part, they don't even know, have never met, and are just faces in a sea of humanity.

     One of my personal biggest fears now is hurting people or causing harm by what I say or do, no matter how well intentioned. I've seen and experienced it too many times, as well as watched the aftermath of hurt, angry, and even damaged people from my behaviors. I'm kind of done with it and with my own malfunctioning behaviors.

     Honestly, the closer I draw to Christ, and the more I see and experience of my own malfunction, the more I wish and would even beg God to just override or even erase who I am completely, to let me be His automaton. But God refuses. He refuses to displace my will and my psyche with His. It's a cooperation of submission to Him or not at all. He respects my individuality when I do not, even as I seek to surrender myself to Him. But God's answer to me is always the same as to Paul, "My charity is enough for you, because the power is brought to completion with weakness."

     Our union with Him is by way of cooperation not domination. We willingly and knowingly submit to Him so that the natural psychology is bypassed and He acts and speaks through us. He won't force us to do it, but there are natural consequences of harm to ourselves and others if we don't.

     Our salvation, not just from the consequences of sin, but from our "sin nature" itself by means of Jesus Christ, our submission and voluntary enslavement to His Spirit as described in Romans 6-8, isn't just about us, it's about every other person around us. The most loving thing you can do for others is to be a disciple yourself, submit to your crucifixion with Him (Romans 6, Galatians 2:20; 6:14, Colossians 3:3 ), ask Him to act and speak through you, and then disengaging from yourself letting Him do it. It is only when it is the Spirit of Christ acting and speaking through us that we can be assured we are not harming those around us, and those we don't even know.

     By loving God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, we love all others around us, because then God loves all others through us. We cannot love God without loving others. By loving all others, we also demonstrate love for God, because we love what is precious to Him.

Acts 5-6: The Church wasn't Immune from Judean Politics

      Finished translating Acts 5-6. I get the impression that Gamaliel and many of the others of Israel’s elders were not actually present at Jesus' trial, and did not consent to it by way of simply not being there. Given Gamaliel's reputation, I'm not too sure he would have been a party to an illegal trial at night. Those who were present at Jesus' trial were ready to do away with the apostles altogether too after Peter spelled out Caiaphas' and Annas' offense to them all. I'm wondering too if Peter just assumed that all of these men were present. He wasn't actually inside at the time, and wouldn't have seen who was there that night. So when he accuses them all, he assumes that they were all there.

     Caiaphas seems keen on denying any responsibility for Jesus' murder in front of the other elders of Israel, and Peter's not having it. "You're bent on bringing this person's blood on us!" Caiaphas tells him as though he had nothing to do with it. This was likely for the benefit of the other members of the Sanhedrin who weren't there. Caiaphas is playing innocent for the more respectable members. Peter then spells it out for him, "[Are you kidding me?] You people violently manhandled Him, AND THEN HUNG HIM ON A WOODEN BEAM!" (addition mine for tone)  Peter has no intentions of letting any of them deny their responsibility in Jesus' death or get away with it.

     And then there's Gamaliel who can't have failed to have observed this exchange and Peter's absolute conviction that they were guilty of murdering an innocent man, and their messiah to boot. He also can't have failed to notice that these men were miraculously released from prison without the guards knowing. Gamaliel was not a stupid man. There's a reason he was one of the most revered teachers of the Torah in ancient Judaism. There were others in the Sanhedrin who weren't there that night who were probably exchanging surprised and disturbed looks with him. It's not a stretch to assume Nicodemus was sitting at that council with Gamaliel as was Joseph of Arimathea. I can just imagine him looking to either of them for wordless clarification or confirmation, and one of them responding with a careful nod or slow shake of the head.

     And then Gamaliel tries to put this potentially blasphemous farce of Caiaphas' to rest. He doesn't know if this Jesus is legitimate or not, but he probably knows what kind of man Caiaphas is. He probably doesn't trust him or agree with him on most things as he's a Pharisee and Caiaphas is a Sadducee, and that's like a Shiite and a Sunni sitting on the same council. What he says is essentially a not so veiled warning to the High Priest and the rest of the Sanhedrin. "Don't go down this road any further. Let God take care of it, or else you'll find yourself His enemy."

     And then while ostensibly agreeing, the High Priest has them scourged out of spite before releasing them. The word in Greek here literally means "to skin." In this context, it means that they were beaten in such a way that skin was ripped open and potentially off. This was Caiaphas letting not only the Apostles know what he thought of them, and probably hoping they would die from their wounds, but also letting Gamaliel know what he thought of the venerated Pharisee's opinions. "Sure, I'll let them go, after the forty minus one with a cat of nine tails."

     True to Gamaliel's predictions, they didn't die from it, it didn't stop them, and the High Priest found himself fighting on the opposite side from the God his office served.

     There's more Judean politics going on here than at first meets the eye. The Pharisees and Sadducees had been political rivals as much as religious rivals for going on more than ninety years now. They despised each other more than Democrats and Republicans in the United States. While the Pharisees attempted to destroy Jesus for his exposing their hypocrisy, the Sadducees, and the High Priest's family in particular, were absolutely threatened by Jesus' resurrection as much as by being responsible for murdering Him using an illegal trial and railroading the Roman governor into signing off on crucifixion. The people's opinions mattered to them, and Jesus' murder and resurrection could potentially be used to break Annas' and Caiaphas' power over the priesthood and the Sanhedrin. The Pharisees could potentially turn the people against the high priest and the Sadducees if they played their cards right with Jesus' followers. This might have been why there were several Pharisees who joined the nascent church and tried to steer them into adhering to the Torah, in particular adhering to circumcision.

The apostles of course didn't care about any of the politics going on, probably not trusting either party, and appeared to only be concerned with being disciples of Jesus and making disciples of Jesus.

     Chapter 6 is really the first place you begin to see cracks in the Jerusalem church's unity in Acts, and honestly, it begins with discrimination. The widows of the Hellenists were being neglected by the Hebraists in the daily service or ministry. Those who were culturally Greek were being discriminated against by those who were culturally Judean.

My observations about this passage lead me to ask the question, why here? Why now? There were doubtless Hellenists within the church in the first five chapters. Judging by the names of those mentioned, it's pretty clear the church was a mixture of those culturally Greek and those culturally Judean, and no one cared up til this point. Everyone had been of a single mind, will, and heart.

     So what changed?

     Well, referring back to Acts 5, politics. The Judean Pharisees found potential allies in the nascent Christians against the Sadducees if they could somehow work it right. Some of these Pharisees joined the church and were baptized. A large crowd of temple priests were obedient to the faith according to the text. But when they entered the community, they brought their prejudices with them, and began to treat those culturally Greek as different or less than just as they had done previously. Their influence within the early church spread to where a council had to be held in Jerusalem by the apostles to put the leash on them and keep them from enforcing circumcision and the Torah on the non-Jewish Greek Christians, and Paul was writing against his former colleagues' misinformation nearly continuously. Even Peter was somewhat afraid of them according to Paul, and Paul had to put him in his place as he writes in Galatians.

     Were they legitimate Christians? Paul certainly wasn't convinced of their sincerity, describing them for what they were, those who had snuck into the church to spy on their freedom in Christ. And here in Acts 6, one of the first results of their inclusion within the community was division.

It's also telling that every one of the first deacons was a Hellenist. You can tell this from their names, each one of which is of Greek origin. The majority of the community, and perhaps the apostles themselves weren't certain of their fellow Judean brothers' motives either, and they wanted this thing put to rest so they could do their jobs.

     This is another observation as well, that this might have been engineered on some level to distract the apostles from what their role in the church is. If they're having to monitor the tables or do the practical work, they won't have the time to preach and teach among the people.

     Of note in the latter part of Acts 6 was that those Stephan was debating with were not culturally Judean per se. They were from Rome, Libya, Alexandria in Egypt, and what is now Southern Turkey near what was Antioch. In other words, they were Hellenized, and to a greater or lesser degree Romanized. 

     The Libertines described those Judeans and their descendants who had been taken to Rome by Pompey as hostages some 90 years prior and then later freed, given Roman citizenship, and allowed to settle in their own district of the city or thereabouts. It's likely Saul/Paul was a part of this group given his Roman name and Roman citizenship and might have even been one of those men losing the debate with Stephan. 

     The text doesn't specify where the men came from who underhandedly instigated trouble and falsely accused Stephan. It's natural to assume they were from the synagogue mentioned, but they could also have been planted by the Pharisees or Sadducees and were just looking for an opportunity. I'm kind of inclined to believe the latter. Planting false witnesses to railroad someone was kind of Annas' and Caiaphas' M.O. at this point and there's too many parallels to Jesus' arrest and "trial" to ignore. We know that the High Priests were just looking for something to charge the Christian leadership with.

     The word used to describe what Stephan and the Libertines were doing means "to search together, to examine together, to discuss, to debate" and has more of the feel of Socratic debate where questions are asked and answers sought together as opposed to an all out heated argument. That the Libertines couldn't oppose Stephan's arguments likely disturbed the High Priest's agents, who then did something about it themselves or reported back to the High Priest and then were instructed what to do. This may or may not be the case, but the conclusion seems to fit the politics of the situation.

The Human Malfunction and the Origins of Most Kinds of Psychiatric Disorders

      The basis of most kinds of psychiatric disorders is either the psyche cannot reconcile what has been done to it according to its understanding of good and evil, or it cannot reconcile what it itself has done with its understanding of good and evil. It is true that there are some which are entirely chemical in nature, which is why I said "most" and not "all." The vast majority of disorders described in the DSM-V are triggered by experiences both traumatic or not, with a genetic predisposition often involved as well, but are then exacerbated by the internal conflict which I described which the psyche tries to protect itself from thus at times also causing those chemical imbalances. 

     You have to remember that the human brain is not only a self-programming computer, but also a self-rearranging logic circuit creating new neural pathways it thinks it's supposed to create based on the conscious or unconscious feelings or thoughts of the person in question, and it will do what it thinks it has to in order to protect what it perceives to be its "self." DID is a good example of this, where the mind splits into multiple personas in response to horrific childhood trauma. The brain is trying to protect the host personality by creating alternate, independent personalities.

     Fundamentally, the human psyche considers what is good as those things which please it or with which it agrees. It considers what is evil those things which don't please it, or with which it does not agree. Those things which it considers good, it clings to, those things which it considers evil it pushes away, and frequently tries to destroy or do away with as a threat to either its physical or psychological survival. The things we cling to trigger our hoarding responses, and feeding and sexual survival responses specifically. The things we push away trigger our fear and aggression survival responses. 

     Those things which the psyche sees as a threat to itself which have been done to us trigger the fear or aggression response, and if it traumatic enough, the fear or aggression response does not switch off as the psyche tries to defend itself. The greater conflict comes into play when the person does something that registers as evil with their psyche. Then the psyche sees itself as a psychological threat, and an error occurs which must be resolved in order to return to sanity. Thus the psyche tries to defend itself either by redefining what it considers evil, letting the violation go, or continuing with the conflict and heading towards mental illness.

     Frequently, as Christians, we beg and plead for God's forgiveness, even though we know He's already forgiven through faith and through Scripture, because we do not feel forgiven. All the while it doesn’t register with us that, it's not that He hasn't forgiven, but it's that we haven't forgiven ourselves, and our brain is still trying to resolve the paradox of itself doing the bad thing or categorizing itself as “bad.”

     The internal "moral" conflict must be dealt with in order to move forward and return to sanity. These conflicts happen as a regular part of normal life and continue to causes errors which build up as much as they happen under traumatic circumstances. This is why forgiveness, letting go of the violation, is so absolutely necessary. Forgiveness for the other person, and forgiveness for yourself. This is also why God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ is a blanket forgiveness covering everything except, according to Christ, unforgiveness which continues the downward spiral into insanity, and treating Christ as nothing while having experienced who He is and what He's done through the Holy Spirit according to the rest of the New Testament, also known as blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

     The ransom which Christ paid for us was paid neither to God nor Satan as are the two most popular theological answers, but to our hamartia malfunction itself and its need to categorize things as either good or evil, right or wrong. You pay a ransom to those holding the hostages in order to free them. You pay a slave price to the slave owner. By way of metaphor, our own Hamartia disorder is our hostage taker and slave owner. By dying in our place and giving us a blanket forgiveness, all debts and demands to our disorder are paid because death is the only thing which will satisfy it, and the only one freed from Hamartia is the one who has died. Hamartia must have its due, and that due is death.

Quite literally, it is our own internal demand that things be either good or evil, which began in Genesis 3, that is holding us hostage and from which we need to be freed.

Thoughts on Peter's Response to the People in Acts 2

     Finished translating Acts 2 this morning. While there's a lot in Acts 2 to comment on, the thing which stood out to me this morning was Peter's answer to the people when they asked what they should do. He responded, literally, "Change your mind, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the letting go of your malfunctions and get the gift of the Holy Spirit."

     Notice he didn't say "just believe in Jesus." At that point after his sermon, it was probably redundant for him to tell them to believe in Jesus anyway, but still, "just believe" was not what he said. Another point to consider is that the text says "the Lord was adding those being delivered (saved, rescued) day by day..." Not "adding those having been saved" but "those being saved," that is, "those who are in process of, not having completed that process."

     One of the posts on the FB group I've become a part of was asking about whether or not baptism was necessary. Nearly every response in the comments was a resounding "no." Usually, the thief on the cross was cited as an example.

     But I have to ask the question, is that how Peter would have answered? Is that how Paul would have answered? Or would they also have questioned the very notion of "what is the bare minimum I need to do to be 'saved?'" Or, "How do I escape hell without actually changing anything?"

     These questions are born of a faulty understanding of what the salvation offered by Jesus Christ really means, and what's involved. Jesus Christ died for us. Justification is taken care of without our input. This is true. But there is also the salvation or deliverance from one's own Hamartia malfunction in the here and now, and this requires a change of mind and baptism.

     Why? Because baptism is what joins us to Jesus Christ, making us one with Him. Those aren't my words or thoughts, they are what Paul himself said in Romans 6. Every reference to baptism in the New Testament talks about it being for salvation and the release or letting go of our malfunctioning behaviors. This is usually translated "forgiveness of sins" but literally, it means "letting go of or detaching from malfunctioning behaviors." 

     What if we're not talking about God letting go of our sins, but us letting go of them through union with Jesus Christ? What if union with Christ through baptism and submission to Him, literally changing your mind, is the only way to actually let go of them and not do something "sinful?" What if getting the Holy Spirit refers specifically to getting the Spirit of Christ through union with Him which is accomplished at baptism into Jesus Christ? What if that's what Peter was talking about and we missed the point because of our English translations (taking cues from the Latin) and theological biases rooted in medieval Catholicism and the Reformation?

     You can believe in Jesus all you want, but you can't take the next step of His salvation without baptism. You can't stop sinning unless you're joined to Him.

A Practical Guide to Submission to Christ

    What does it mean to “remain in Christ?” How can you tell if it’s you acting or speaking, or Christ acting and speaking through you? And how do you get there? This is where our deliverance through Christ, not from the consequences of sin, but our internal sin malfunction itself comes into play. It is not a once and you’re done thing, but a moment by moment surrender to Him.

     First, He won’t hijack your actions and words against your will. Permission and cooperation with Him must be either implicit or explicit. He won’t violate your free will. In my morning prayers, I specifically ask Him to be Jesus for people, give Jesus to people, receive Jesus from people, and see Jesus in people, and to love all others through me, act through me, and speak through me, and explicitly surrender myself to Him. So, there must be an understanding there, and the moment you yank back control He will take His hands off the wheel, so to speak. He will not violate you. It’s either with your consent or not at all.

     Second, when He does act and speak through you, it may seem very weird, because you can be thinking and feeling one way, yet have words and actions coming from you which are the complete opposite of what’s going through your mind and emotions. In short, with your permission, He’s bypassing what’s being produced by your own mind and emotions. So be prepared to be surprised by what you say and do. You may want to say or do something else entirely. Discourage this impulse, and make yourself take a back seat to what He’s saying and doing even if you don’t understand it. You may find yourself saying things to others which you couldn’t possibly know to say yet they need to hear. It may freak you out at first. Don’t freak out and inhibit this. Just let Him speak.

     Third, if the actions or words which are coming from you are born from fear, aggression, a feeding drive, or a sexual drive, then He’s not the one doing them. Those are your natural, biologically driven, malfunctioning responses to either perceived threats or survival needs. That does not make them “evil,” just not Him. Be careful with this, because these are the malfunctioning drives which initiate things like theft, lying, murders, explosions of anger, greed, substance abuse, whoring, cowardice, and all the other “works of the flesh” which Paul described both in Galatians and in other similar lists which he gives in his other letters.

     Fourth, His actions and words through you are always kind, driven by love for the other, never selfish or self serving, patient, generous, humble, and self sacrificing. This is where that list of the “fruit of the Spirit” which Paul gives comes into play, as well as other similar lists in his other letters. You may or may not “feel” or think these things yourself in that moment, but you will be expressing them to others nonetheless. This is because Christ is bypassing your own natural feelings and responses and giving what is of Him to the other person instead. He will use the information already in your head in ways you wouldn’t normally consider, and bring to mind things you’d forgotten. What He does will never be harmful to the other person, even if the other person can’t be helped in that moment. 

     Fifth, these things are true when it is just you and Him as well.

     Sixth, you are going to make mistakes. You are going to yank back control at first, freak out, and be afraid of the wrong thing coming out of your mouth, or the wrong thing being done through you. This is natural. It is a process and a discipline which must be learned over time. It takes more time for some, and less time for others. From my observations, the amount of time it takes depends on how much you do or do not trust yourself to do the “right” thing. Those who put no stock in themselves tend to pick it up faster than those who trust themselves completely.

     Finally, there will be an internal fight against this. Your survival responses will kick in and kick against Christ controlling what is happening and not you. There will be a psychological battle against it. Just keep up with it, keep going and push through. The longer you go, the more He is in control, the more used to it you will be and the more you will submit to Him.

Thoughts About Pointing Out Sin

      Thinking about this today after someone on a Facebook group I’m a part of posted about a relative going through transition from female to male. This person was very upset about it, asking for prayer and advice. This was my response:

     “My first question would be, "Has this person professed to follow Jesus Christ?" 

     “If the answer is no, then trying to get them to live by Christian religious rule can cause more problems than it solves. For us, we are encouraged by Paul to remain in the state we are in, and our practice is the disengagement from ourselves and our natural psychology in favor of Christ with whom we have been joined. But someone who has not been joined to Him has no ability here. It is my observation that continuing to get them to change their behavior based on Christian principles will likely have the opposite effect, and push them further. 

     “It sounds like this person is miserable because they feel like they're supposed to be male, and this internal understanding is being railed at by those around them and they are being told they're crazy, ungodly, and generally rejected because of it. This is enough to cause depression and mental illness in anyone. Ultimately, this is their decision, just as it is their decision to follow Christ or not. No one else can make it for them, nor should they. 

     “My general counsel in this case is that the person should pick a gender they can live with and stick with it, understanding the consequences of their choice. This does not damn them any more than any other choice we make, and there are only two sins which are explicitly unforgivable. Gender reassignment is not one of them.”

     Another member of the group took issue with my response, making the accusation that if someone were to ask me if I thought what they were doing was “sin” I would respond “no.” He then proceeded to say that it was our job as Christians to point out sin when we see it.

     The problem is that this person missed the point entirely.

     Every human being operating in their own natural psychology is "living in sin." We have a neurological malfunction as human beings that affects the way we respond in such a manner that we cannot respond from our own devices without it impacting our responses. We cannot think, act, or speak apart from it where our biology is concerned any more than someone with Autism Spectrum Disorder can do so without his or her disorder impacting that response. No matter how well intentioned or good we think we’re being, anything we produce is still “sinful.” And when all actions, words, or thoughts are sinful, it is pointless to direct attention to any one in particular as being worthy of more condemnation than another. They are symptoms to a cause, not the problem itself.

     Jesus Christ and submission to Him is the only way we can bypass this, acting without that malfunction impacting our actions or responses. 

     Lying is sin. gossip is sin. wanting what someone else has is sin. thinking you're better than others is sin. Judging others is explicitly warned against by Christ as being a ticket to being judged yourself. It isn't our job to point out and condemn the choices and mistakes of others. It is our job to express Jesus Christ through us that others would experience Him. It is only Jesus Christ acting through us and speaking through us when we do not sin, because it is not us speaking or acting but the Father through Christ and Christ through us.

     I can’t judge this girl. I have no right to judge this girl because I suffer from the same malfunction she does. No other human being save one has that right, and He expressly died for the sins of the whole world to save the world, not condemn it.