New Thoughts: (07/08/15-07/11/15)
As Paul looks back to his time in Corinth, it’s worthwhile to consider what preceded his arrival there. According to Luke’s record of events in Acts 17, Paul had previously been laboring in Athens. It’s interesting to note the description of his efforts there. Being provoked by the ubiquitous idols represented in that place, he was ‘reasoning in the synagogue […] and in the market place every day’ (Ac 17:17). He was locking rhetorical horns with Epicureans and Stoics, dealing with philosophers. It wasn’t an entirely fruitless time, but for the most part, the Athenians proved more intrigued by the novelty of Paul’s ideas than with discerning the truth of them.
This had come on the heels of successful work in Berea, and other cities of Macedonia. Paul had been seeing this missionary stuff really going well, and then came Athens. He tried to meet them on their own terms. He presented his doctrine with the skill he possessed, which was no inconsequential skill. His letters give us sufficient evidence of his ability to reason well, present his arguments in logical order, and anticipate the likely objections. From what we read here, it sounds like this was the approach he tried in Athens. Here were reasonable men, renowned for their pursuit of philosophical truth. Let us address them in the way they prefer. But, the result had been near total frustration. Rather than recognize wisdom, they sneered. They perhaps sought to hear more from him, but only for entertainment value.
So, he came to Corinth. He was, so far as we can tell, alone. His companions from prior travels were behind him yet, he having gone ahead by sea as they proceeded by land. He came, we can well imagine, somewhat dejected for the lack of results in Athens. This Achaean region was going to be a harder work, apparently. But, he also came with a certain recognition that maybe a part of the problem was that Paul had been trying to operate in his own strength and talent. So, coming to Corinth, he says, he resolved to acknowledge nothing but Christ crucified. He wouldn’t try the path of rhetorical skill again. He had it. That wasn’t the issue. He’d seen what rhetoric meant to these people, and it was an idol in its own right. Men were enamored of fine words and clever aphorisms, and he wasn’t going to have anything to do with that. Rather, having been sent as a herald, he would stick with the proclamation he had been sent to deliver.
This is not to say he was entirely comfortable with the plan. As we move into verse 3, we find Paul speaking of his weakness and fear. That weakness is spoken of in terms most often used for sickness and infirmity. But, the term can also speak to a mental weakness, whether in lack of understanding, or perhaps an incapacitating feeling of impotence. The added reference to debilitating fear, fear so strong as to leave one physically trembling might suggest this has far more to do with state of mind than state of body.
Nothing we know of Paul suggests that he was physically imposing. In fact, we might be more inclined to think the opposite. He speaks often of his weakness, but not as a thing to bemoan. In fact, for Paul it is a thing to celebrate, for it makes the point that the fruitfulness of his ministry is not because of him, it’s because of God. That is his point here, clearly. It’s a point he makes again in his other letter to Corinth. There is plenty of debate about the exact point of reference for his statement there, but the statement itself is entirely familiar. Three times, he asked that this messenger of Satan might depart from him. God’s answer? “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” And, how does Paul respond to this? “Therefore, I most gladly prefer to boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me” (2Co 12:8-9).
There are those who insist this is evidence that Paul was afflicted with some physical malady that God decided not to heal. Others insist that this means no such thing, that the buffeting of Satan has nothing to do with sickness in this case. Yet another camp insists that God’s answer does not indicate His unwillingness to heal, but rather expresses the means by which He heals: His grace and power. I am not here to settle that point. What I find much more interesting in this regard is Paul’s comment to the Galatians. “You know that it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you the first time” (Gal 4:13).
First off, the point of reference is no longer debatable. It was a physical malady. Cured or not, it was there at the time. More remarkably, it was there for a purpose. The implication of that passage is that if Paul had not been so sick, he probably wouldn’t have stuck around to preach. He was, perhaps, on his way elsewhere, just passing through en route to his intended destination. But, this was God’s intended destination for His herald, and one way to read this is to see that God did what He needed to do to get His herald to stop at the right place and deliver His proclamation. Here, Paul. In this place.
Could God not have found some other means? Of course He could. He directed Paul by many and varied means. It’s disconcerting, I’ll admit, how often those means were things we would count as punishing. Sickness is hardly the way we prefer to get God’s message. For Paul, that was a relatively mild delivery. Beatings were more common, being stoned, chased out of town, thrashed, drowned, starved, any number of particularly pleasant ways of being told, “Your work here is done.” It must have been something of a relief to be called into Macedonia by mere visions. But, that seems to have been the exception far more than the rule.
What can we draw from this? For one thing, we can draw the conclusion that even the things we count as evil, God puts to use for His good purpose. If we’d stop whining about our circumstance, we might be marvelously surprised to discover how it is God is using our circumstance. Sickness is not necessarily a punishment for sin. Jesus made that sufficiently clear. Sickness is not even necessarily a setup for God to heal, so we can see His miraculous power on display. It may very well be that sickness has come so that you, the sick one, can minister right where you are, just as you are. It may just be that were it not for the pain and suffering, you would become such an insufferably egotistical bore that ministry by your hands could never bear fruit. It would be too much about you, and too little about Him.
Whether you hear that message from the 2 Corinthians passage, it’s certainly lurking in the Galatians comment. It’s also central to Paul’s point here. The preaching wasn’t demonstration of my prowess. The message wasn’t about me, and its effectiveness was not due to me. Look at me! Remember what I was like when I was with you. Towering intellect? Hardly! I had this one message: Christ crucified. I didn’t enter into debates. You loved those too much. I simply proclaimed the message I had been given. I wasn’t some glowing physical specimen, such that my demeanor was enough to make up for my simplicity of speech. I was not going to commend myself to you in the arena any more than in the auditorium. The things you prized, I could not display. And it is well that I couldn’t. Because I ministered as I did, your faith could not be said to rest on the wisdom of men. There was only the power of God upon which to rest it.
This brings us to verse 4, which is perhaps the most difficult verse to process in this section, or at least the easiest to misinterpret. To handle it properly, I maintain we must remain clear on the subject. “My message and my preaching.” Whatever is being said, it is about this topic. When we get to the second clause, the subject has not changed. Let’s consider that subject. We have, in the NASB, message and preaching. Other translations make it speech and preaching. The Greek is logos and keerugma. The first term is familiar to us, even if the meaning tends to get stuck in John’s special use of the term. More simply, it indicates speech with the general connotation of intelligence. In other words, it’s not just making noise, and it’s not incoherent rambling. It’s speech with the intention of conveying meaning. Sometimes, it indicates the power of reasoning left unvocalized. But, here it seems clear enough that Paul is not looking at thought processes, but means of ministry.
In that setting, we might find the idea of imparting doctrine. That is to say the gospel, the news of Christ crucified and the significance of that fact, are the content of his speech. That is his message. That’s the intelligence he is seeking to impart to his listeners. But, this is combined with preaching, keerugma. This gets us back to the idea of acting the herald. I think Paul uses it particularly to remind both himself and his readers that the message of his logos was not his own composition, but the message given him to proclaim. He is a servant, not an artist. The King charged him with delivering a very specific message: The message of the cross. It might be felt that what had happened in Athens, or what failed to happen, was in part due to the messenger improvising. It is just as probable, though, that in that place, different means had been ordained. I confess I’m inclined to see that as a lesson more for Paul than for the Athenians. It was his failure there that led to the approach here in Corinth, and the approach here appears to be one he took to heart for the rest of his ministry. This is the message. Artful speech and careful debate are not the way. Faithful delivery of the message given by the Master, without embellishment and without artifice: That is what you are called to do.
Notice this about the preaching term. It ends in ma. I have had it rather hammered home of late how this suffix indicates ‘the effect of’. Preaching is not, in this case, so much the means of delivering the message, but the effect of the message. The proclamation is the effect of having proclaimed. Does that make sense? I would incline more towards an understanding that the proclamation is the effect of serving as herald. The public crier is of no effect if his words are his own, and not those of the message he was given to deliver. The effect of his public crying is that the message, the logos is delivered intact and unaltered.
Does this mean we should back off on our study and preparation? Does this mean that carefully crafted sermons should be tossed over in favor of more immediately inspired dissertation? I don’t think so. It does, however, remind us to take care of how and why we prepare. If we are seeking to impress by our skills, then we are failing. If we are seeking to accommodate our words to the preferences and biases of our audience, then we are failing. We are altering the message. We are laboring in our own strength. We are, in short, delivering a different gospel, and no longer serving as heralds of the King. We are preaching our own message, and therefore preaching our own vain imaginations. We may look impressive and sound impressive, but God’s not in it, and the fruit of the Spirit will not result from it.
So, we reach the second clause. Paul, having rejected the efforts to speak persuasively, and to demonstrate the sort of wisdom that so impressed the locals, instead points us to ‘demonstration of the Spirit and of power’. But, what are we to make of that? Let’s start with some terminology. To demonstrate: In other settings we might read that as to make manifest. That is, however, a somewhat archaic term which we use in the church because it is so frequently there in the Scriptures. It is almost a secret code word for us. How about, to show forth? No. That’s almost equally archaic. To make evident comes nearer to something we might hear in regular conversation. “I’m trying to make you see…”
Then there is that matter of power. Once again we see the term dunamis. This is a popular term in the Charismatic part of the church. Ears perk up at the mention of power. Now we’re getting to the good stuff! Things are going to start happening. That’s entirely true, so far as it goes. But, let us keep verse 5 in view. It is the power of God, not power randomly released. That power, that dunamis, is ascribed to God because it is power that resides in Him by virtue of His nature. The same cannot be said of us. To the degree that God’s power is found to be in evidence in or around us it is most assuredly not by virtue of our nature. It continues to be by virtue of His, else the power is not present at all.
So, Paul ascribes to his efforts the reality of having made this power of God evident. But, hold to his context. He’s been telling us what he did not do. He did not demonstrate his intellectual skills. He did not show off his rhetorical chops. Why? So that the power of God would be evident in what he did do. What did he do? We go back to the subject of this sentence: Preaching the word. Delivering the message. Proclaiming exactly and only what he had been sent to proclaim.
How then is this power he speaks of made evident? In this instance at least, it is not by miraculous display. Whatever may be said of this evidence of God’s power, it is not because of what Paul did. He’s not discussing actions, per se. He’s not talking about laying hands on folks to heal them. He’s not talking about casting out demons. He’s not talking about signs and wonders at all. That’s not to discount signs and wonders. There is ample evidence of such things in the ministry of Paul and in his discussion of that ministry. But, this is not part of that evidence. Here, he is talking about his preaching: The simple delivery of the unadulterated message of Christ crucified.
The power of which he speaks, then, is not about the sorts of things which amaze us by their supernatural tint. This is the Spirit and power made evident, but not in the same fashion Moses demonstrated God’s power to Pharaoh. Sticks are not turning to snakes. He’s not causing gold dust to fall from the sky. He’s not causing folks to be slain in the Spirit. He’s not doing anything of that sort. That might impress them with him, and Paul is determined that they be impressed only with God. So, he speaks simply and truthfully, as the Lord gives utterance. And the Lord’s power is seen in that these folks hear that message and respond to it.
What Paul said about the Gospel still holds. To those in Corinth it was either going to be offensive or stupid. As we continue to proclaim the simple truth of the Gospel today, that’s still how people will react. They will either find our message offensive or stupid. Today, it offends for its exclusivity as much as for its insistence that sin be recognize as sin. How can you claim this is the only real Truth? It’s just a construct of western society. It’s just one philosophy amongst many. Who’s to say that your truth is truthier than that of the Hindus or Taoists or scientists or humanists? Honestly, is Christianity all that different than Islam? Now, we may recognize the fatuous nature of some of these arguments, and we may find cause for concern in the incapacity of our fellow human beings for rational thought, but it’s not that far different from the reception Paul and the other apostles experienced.
Then, there’s the response of, “that’s stupid.” It’s just another set of fairy tales. Do you believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy, too? Myths and fables! It’s about as believable as all those tales of Zeus and Hercules and the like. Makes for great cinema, but as a basis for understanding life, it lacks a certain something don’t you think? I’m certainly not going to completely shift my lifestyle on the basis of your myths any more than I would on the basis of theirs. It’s just a bunch of nonsense, and frankly, I’m surprised somebody like you would buy into that kind of stuff. I thought you were smarter than all that. But, hey. If you need your crutch, who am I to pull it away from you?
Here, too, the response we get today is not so very different from what Paul and the rest heard then. Paul, at least as he was operating in Corinth, refused to get overly worked up about the response. He wasn’t going to alter his methods to suit the culture. Not this time. If anything, he altered them to be that much more counter-cultural. He would not appeal to them as they liked, but as God insisted. That way, when there was a positive result, it was very clearly all about God and not about Paul.
Am I on target with this understanding? Well, I can find a few of the more paraphrased translations that present a different view. The NET, for example, presents this sense of Paul’s intent. “And my message and my preaching were very plain. Rather than using clever and persuasive speeches, I relied only on the power of the Holy Spirit.” That suggests the power and the Spirit were involved in his delivery and not their reception. I don’t suppose I would argue the point particularly. But, let’s try the Weymouth version. “And my language and the Message that I proclaimed were not adorned with persuasive words of earthly wisdom, but depended upon truths which the Spirit taught and mightily carried home.” This, I think gets us nearer the reality. The Spirit is operating at both ends, both in the delivery and the reception. The power of God is made evident in that this simple message drives the Gospel home, and in the heart made receptive to this stupid and offensive message.
This draws us back to the centrality of preaching the Gospel. Whatever we may say of powerful signs and wonders, Paul’s focus, particularly through this early part of the letter is on the delivery of the message. It’s a recurring heartbeat through these early chapters. “We preach…” (1Co 1:23), “We speak…” (1Co 2:7), “We speak…” (1Co 2:13). “I determined to know nothing but Christ crucified, that was my message, and I preached it with simple words.” The power of God is made evident in that you received that message and believed it. See? Your faith isn’t built on anything so shaky as oratory. Your faith isn’t in some strong man, some charismatic man of words. No! Your faith rests on the power of God and that alone. If His power had not been behind my message, my words would have fallen on deaf ears. If His Spirit had not already come to you, if God in His power had not determined beforehand that you would respond to this message, you would still be lost in your sins. But you aren’t. And that is the clearest, most visible evidence of God’s power. You have been saved.
This is both confidence for the hearer and comfort for the preacher. For the hearer, your belief has not come about because of fine words. You have not simply succumbed to emotional manipulation in believing. You have recognized the call of God, and inevitably, where He has called you have answered. All glory to Him! For the preacher, there is the comfort of knowing that the effectualness of your preaching is not dependent on you, that the outcome is not, in the end, dependent on you. You are faithful to preach not because the kingdom can’t advance without you, but for the joy of obeying, for the immense privilege of being allowed a hand in what God is doing. If the church is growing, it’s not because you’re so awesome. It’s because God is determined to see His kingdom advance. If the church is shrinking, assuming you remain a man of faith, it’s not your fault. Were it me, I might be asking God if there was somewhere else He wanted me working, but if this is the place, then come what may, stand fast! Preach the word, sow the seed. The harvest belongs to God. Either He speaks through the message He has given you or He does not. Either He has prepared hearts to receive that message or He has not. Your responsibility is not for the reception, but for the faithful delivery.
The power of the message is not in erudite speech. The power of the message is not in the delivery, not in the skillfulness of the preacher, not even in the careful preparation. The power of the message is in God who crafts the message. This is not to say that we ought not to speak well in speaking for God. It is certainly not to suggest that we should forego careful study of the Scriptures. It is, however, to say that we must be careful lest we make our own care and skill an idol.
Do you know where the power is, what it looks like? Is it to be seen in signs and wonders? There’s nothing inherently wrong with such things. Then again, there’s nothing inherently right. Signs and wonders can be counterfeited. The power of God cannot. Paul certainly had nothing against signs and wonders. He merely insisted that they be kept in proper perspective. We’ll get to that in due course in this letter. But, his correctives to the Corinthian church cannot be read as a rejection of those things. The record of the Corinthian church, for all that, cannot be taken as cause to reject those things. That is a caution I need to take to heart going forward.
Paul would tell the Romans as he drew his letter to them to a close, “I have fully preached the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit” (Ro 15:19). Actually, let me go back and quote that and the preceding verse more directly. “For I will not presume to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me, resulting in the obedience of the Gentiles by word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, in the power of the Spirit; so that from Jerusalem and round about as far as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ” (Ro 15:18-19). That’s taken from the NASB. Do you see Paul’s care of speech here? The power of signs and wonders, the power of the Spirit: These are what Christ has accomplished. They are not what Paul has done. They were done through him, yes, but it was Christ who accomplished. Christ’s work was not without result in Paul’s actions. For his part, he fully preached the gospel of Christ. That was his part. Preach.
What shall I take from this? Given the focus we see Paul bringing to his message to Corinth, from which place he wrote to Rome, it’s pretty clear that whatever signs and wonders Christ decided to work through him, his focus remained on the assigned task: preach the Gospel. Proclaim what was given you to proclaim. This is something to take careful note of. There’s a twofold error to be countered by it. On the one hand, it seems clear enough that the ministry which focuses on the gifts rather than the Gospel has abandoned its assigned mission. The mission is not to act as some purveyor of miracles. Indeed, I should think the ministry that promotes the idea that they can pretty much produce miracles on demand is a ministry so far off its moorings as to be no ministry of Christ whatsoever.
On the other hand, to stand utterly opposed to any display of such signs and wonders is just as off base. The Scriptural grounds for such a perspective simply aren’t there. Paul, to the degree he addresses such things at all, does not reject them. In point of fact, he lays claim to having displayed the same gifts repeatedly. Neither does he instruct his readers that these were things reserved to the apostles, or that they were only for this first wave of church planting. Nothing is said of them to suggest such an understanding. I will continue to consider this, no doubt, until Christ calls me home, but I have yet to see a convincing argument for the standard position that the gifts ceased with the Apostles. They certainly seemed to have no expectation of such a situation, and history would certainly seem to indicate otherwise. What is reasonable to suppose and to teach is that the gifts are not the point. The gifts, even when given, remain the property of Christ, His to exercise. We can no more demand He act then we can demand He save. We can ask. We can ask aright, or we can ask from base motive. We can ask in hope of an answer. But, we must acknowledge that the God of all Creation remains in charge. It is His wise decision whether His answer matches our expectations or whether His answer proves wiser than our asking.
Before I move forward I want to look slightly further back in that Romans passage. “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Ro 15:13). Notice where the power of the Spirit comes into view here: You abounding in hope. Your hope is the result of His power. That is because your hope is the result of faith, and faith is not something you’ve worked up in yourself. It’s not an emotional commitment. It’s not self-deluded wishful thinking. It’s not the acceptance of some philosophical argument, either. That’s been Paul’s point here. Your faith wasn’t the result of carefully argued presentation. Your faith wasn’t the result of reason. It wasn’t opposed to reason, but it wasn’t the result of reason. Your faith was an impossibility apart from the power of the Holy Spirit.
Think back across what’s been said so far in this letter. Wiser men than you have heard the message. Smarter men than you have considered the arguments. And yet, they are not here, are they? Is it because the message is not wise? Is it because the arguments don’t hold up? You know better! Smarter and wiser men then you have also come to faith. But, it wasn’t smartness and wisdom that got them there. It was the power of the Holy Spirit, apart from which the greatest wisdom and intelligence of man cannot manage to arrive at the truth of God.
I’ve said it before, and will no doubt make note of it again in future. The philosophers of ancient Greece were not completely off course. You can find things in Plato’s writings that are very near to the words of Jesus. They were not men blinded to the truth entirely. They were, however, not men granted the power of the Holy Spirit. They did not come to saving knowledge of Christ. They did not come to faith in the God Who Is. They came to such truths as they could assay by their own wit and wisdom, and not a step closer. These are the sorts Paul had encountered in Athens. They had their philosophies, morals, and ethics. They sought to live in accord with those things. They were probably even pretty consistent in doing so, maybe more so than the average Christian today. But, they were not going to attain to heaven by all that. They were yet without hope. The grave would come and that would be that. And this was the best-case scenario. The truth is far more grim. That won’t be that. An eternity of regret to the uttermost remains.
But, here: Apart from wisdom and intelligence yet opposed to neither, stands the Gospel preached by men of whatever capacity and art. And the Gospel bears fruit, again whatever the capacity and art of the man who delivers it. It’s not the man. It’s the power of the Spirit. It’s the power of the Spirit in guiding his preaching, and more: It’s the power of the Spirit infilling the hearer. Apart from that the words must fall to the ground. Apart from that, there is no faith. Apart from faith there is no hope. The power of the Spirit is made manifest, going back to Paul’s message to the Corinthians by their own response to the message of the cross.
This is where we must land. Faith must stand on the power of God; else it is not faith, merely opinion. That faith which is merely the result of reason is no foundation for hope. I think we can safely suppose that most any man is fully convinced of something. Many a man is convinced of big things, whole systems of morality, ethics and social organization. They are sincere believers in whatever it is they believe. They may or may not be wholly consistent in living according to those beliefs, but in general, this is their guidance system. They are no different than us in that regard. But, here’s the difference. However sincere their belief, they are sincerely wrong.
We can look at the myriad other religions that attract the attention of man. Hindus are no doubt fervent in their faith in Hinduism, Buddhists in their Buddhism, Jews in their Judaism, and Muslims are clearly fervently devoted to their Islamism. For all that, the secular humanists are just as devoted to their atheism. They are all sincere, as sincere as you or I. But, they are sincerely wrong. At the end of days, the God Who Is will, I think sorrowfully, look upon them and say, “Be gone. I never knew you.” Faith is belief. Faith is consent to the arguments and the proofs. But faith, if it be saving faith, is something far more than that. It is the power of the Holy Spirit already resident within. Apart from that preceding power, there is no hope of faith. If man could arrive at faith apart from the power of God, then this whole work of the cross is worse than foolishness. It’s an abomination. But, the cross is not an abomination. It is the power and the wisdom of God. It is the very plan and purpose of Creation, that history should come to this point, that God should be made physically manifest to His creatures, that He might save the unsalvageable, love the unlovely, and bring to life those who were by nature dead from conception.
Understand this: Faith is belief, and belief is necessarily based on knowledge and assent. The problem many of us have is that we stop at knowledge. We know the facts. We can put two and two together. We can accept that what the Bible teaches is true. Even those who will not accept its entirety can perceive the moral truths contained therein. Few if any are going to argue that the commandment against murder is wrongheaded, or that maybe adultery, false witness and the like are matters of personal taste. Commanded to love your neighbor, you might recognize that this is a particularly tall order, given your neighbor, but you would be hard pressed to reject it as stupid, wrong-headed advice. What parent is going to argue against the instruction that children should honor their parents and obey them? But, that’s only accepting the logic of the facts.
Many a Christian in the pew has stopped at this point. They’ll hear the sermon. They’ll nod in agreement with the points made. Then, they’ll go home and continue life just as they did before. I’m not even going to suggest these are nominal Christians, or carnal Christians as some like the term. Sincere, devout believers are fully capable of the same response. Yes, I agree this is how I should be. But, I’m not, nor am I going to do anything with the information. Thank you, though. Life’s just too busy.
We must proceed beyond knowledge to assent. Assent is more than just agreeing. We’ve already got that much with knowledge. It would be insanity to know the facts as factual and reject them anyway. That’s like understanding the laws of gravity and then attempting to go through your day as if gravity does not apply. This is not a recipe for long days and good health. It seems safe enough to assume that real knowledge has to include agreement with the facts known. But, assent moves beyond this to putting that knowledge into practice. This draws us near to the best known declaration from the book of James. Faith without works is dead (Jas 2:17). That is, quite arguably, because faith without works isn’t faith at all. It hasn’t the assent component. It’s only reached the opinion stage.
There’s a reason we tend to insist orthodoxy of belief is insufficient in itself. It must be joined with orthopraxy. Fine words. What do they mean? Knowing isn’t enough. Practice must follow upon knowledge. Understanding must lead to action. Faith cannot help but produce works that accord with faith. If faith depends upon the power of the Spirit indwelling, then it cannot be supposed that there could be a fruitless faith. If the Spirit indwells, how can it even be thinkable that the fruits of the Spirit, the evidence of His indwelling presence, would not be seen? Assent! Don’t just speak it, live it.
Now, let me set this out there. Living it does not necessarily look like what you think it does. Your living it may not look like what I expect. There are boundaries we can clearly draw, to be sure. If you are living in sin and calling it faith, I can rightly call you out as a liar and a fraud. If, however, the particulars of mission that God has impressed upon my heart don’t happen to match those with which you are tasked, that is not to say that one or the other of us must not be living our faith. If one or the other of us is doing nothing that might count as a kingdom purposed activity, maybe there’s room for concern. But, the truth is we generally do not know one another’s business sufficiently to render any such judgment.
You may show up for prayer meetings with regularity. Fine. That is not cause to suppose that only those who likewise attend these meetings pray. You may be out in the streets every weekend evangelizing. Praise God! More power to you. That does not mean that every man, woman and child in the church should be out there with you. If they are called to that specific mission, then yes. If they are called to other purposes, no. This gets us to matters Paul will be addressing later in the letter, so perhaps I should save the matter for that place. For now, understand that faith necessarily informs practice. And understand that faith, if it is faith at all, not only stands on the power of God, it rests in the power of God, and is the result of the power of God.
Faith is not a muscle that we exercise so we can show off our spiritual abs. Faith is not a set of incantations by which we conjure up signs and wonders, or bind God to our purposes. Faith is the evidence of things unseen, the first and foremost being that indwelling Spirit of the Living God by Whose power faith has come, and by Whose continued effort faith grows and flourishes.
Your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but the power of God. That is the reason Paul gives to his approach. It is also a simple statement of fact. Hearing it, I would suppose that many of these Corinthians were feeling the need to repent. Their faith did indeed rest on God’s power. But, they had become more intrigued with the wisdom of men. Cultural norms had crept back in, or perhaps had never really left. Fine speeches and careful argumentation intrigue. We are no different in that regard. We love a good sermon, and rightly so. But, we mustn’t get drawn off into thinking the preaching skills of this preacher or that are cause for a following. It’s the Gospel that we follow, not the preacher.
Men may come along promoting this or that work as the sign of a real Christian. Don’t be distracted by that. The real work of the Christian is to believe in Him who sent Christ. No more, no less. We are in an age of movement Christianity. Name-brand ministries, para-ministries and pseudo-ministries abound. Many a church falls into disarray because it has become a cult of personality rather than a house of God. Be careful! You are not immune. It is our continued nature to find causes and heroes and the like. It is our continued nature to raise up anything and everything as an idol we can worship. We continue to be inclined to look for anything we might follow besides Christ. His way is hard, though His yoke is easy. It’s costly, and we aren’t all that sure we want to eat the cost. We are forever in need of attentive consideration of our own ways, for we are all of us Corinthians.
These men and women heard with repentance. It seems clearly evident from other records we have of them, not least being Paul’s later letter to them. But, they also reverted to form, from what we can see in Clement’s writings. Repentance is not a one-time deal. It’s a constant need, and one we are constantly forgetting. Even the church in Ephesus, from which Paul wrote this letter to the Corinthians, would suffer the same issues. The call of Christ to that church, to the Corinthians, to all of us, is the same: “You have left your first love. Remember! Remember and repent. Go back to doing what you did at first” (Rev 2:4-5).
Stop looking at everybody else and look at yourself. Remember and repent. Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. That’s not a message for the family in the next pew. It’s a message for you. It’s a message for me. None of us have arrived, finally got it all figured out and put into perfect practice. None of us outgrows the need for Christ or the need for repentance. Was ever a God so patient? All His children are constantly straying off, yet He keeps calling us back. He will not let us get too far away. He comes to our rescue. We have every cause to be thankful, and every cause for abiding hope – if our faith rests in God alone.
