Curses

There's something curious at the end of 1 Corinthians.

Paul does his usual thing, passing on greetings from various churches and people. "The churches in the province of Asia send you greetings. Aquila and Priscilla greet you warmly in the Lord, and so does the church that meets at their house. All the brothers here send you greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss." (1 Cor 16:19-20)

These greetings, standard as they are in the New Testament letters, are pleasant because they suggest a sense of community we don't have. Separated by days worth of travel, these churches still felt closer to each other than to the communities they lived in. In fact, many of those early Christians, separated by miles of rough geography, knew each other by name - Aquila and Priscilla, for example.

But then Paul writes something unexpected: "If anyone does not love the Lord –a curse be on him." (v22).

Wow, really? It's OK to curse people? Remember, Paul isn't cursing at these folks, like using bad language to let them know how unhappy he is. He's cursing them, as in the opposite of blessing. Putting a curse on someone was to make (if you believed in supernatural powers, which most people did back then) or at least want something bad to happen to that person. Maybe they would break a leg or get boils, maybe something worse.

To put a curse on someone seems vindictive and mean. To me, there's a connotation of vengefulness, as if Paul would like to get even with all those who stoned him and jailed him. But that would be completely out of character for Paul.

Knowing Paul, I'd bet he means people who have heard the gospel but still don't love God. And it seems likely, in the context of this book, that he has on his mind those who lead others astray with their divisiveness and false teaching. Even so, this whole curse business makes me uncomfortable, just like God's orders to the Israelites in the Old Testament to slaughter entire towns.

I don't claim to understand it, but it reminds me that sin is serious business, and that sinners deserve death. Jesus said that someone who causes a child to sin would be better off jumping in the ocean with an anchor around his neck. We have such a nice faith, one characterized by love, that we forget that the justice side of it calls for our blood.

Sobering, but if we forget that, the cross is of no use to us. Jesus blood only has meaning in the context of my sin. I dare not take that lightly.

Submission

I hate to submit. I don't always want to lead, I just don't want to have to listen to someone else. I especially don't like having to change what I want to do because someone else wants something different.

In 1 Cor 16:15-18, Paul describes two kinds of people the Corinthian Christians should submit to. "You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. I urge you, brothers, to submit to such as these and to everyone who joins in the work, and labors at it. I was glad when Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus arrived, because they have supplied what was lacking from you. For they refreshed my spirit and yours also. Such men deserve recognition."

The household of Stephanas had been doing God's work the longest. It's easy to see why Paul might direct the church to submit to them - they'd paid their dues, they had more experience, they had seniority. You might assume Paul is saying, "These folks have earned their spurs; pay attention to them and learn."

Except the second category of people Paul calls the church to submit to is "everyone who joins the work." That's a little harder to swallow; that means some guy who just converted yesterday can direct me.

I wonder about the point Paul is making here. Is he saying that any Christian who is diligently laboring should be heeded? That's a valid interpretation. I remember Blackaby (Desiring God) writing that every time we see God at work, that's an invitation to join. Maybe these busy beavers have every right to ask us to jump in and expect us to comply.

Or maybe this is just a more general point about submitting to one another in order to avoid conflict. Remember, this letter started out with Paul challenging the divisions caused by followers picking their favorite teacher, Paul or Apollos.

Or maybe this was something specific to the church at Corinth; Paul does say that these diligent workers provided what the Corinthian church couldn't, or at least didn't: they refreshed Paul's spirit and that of other Christians. In other words, they came and served, and encouraged. In that case, I need to look at how I support fellow Christians to know if that applies to me.

In any case, this instruction points out something that Paul, and presumably God, values. Obedient living means serving, which among other things will refresh fellow believers. If I'm doing that, I have a right to expect others to help. If I'm not, I'd better find some worker to join. At that point, they have every right to lead, and I should follow.

Unwilling

Paul also has a personal word about Apollos, and this is one of those things that make me wonder why God wanted some things included in scripture. Paul says (1 Cor 16:12) "Now about our brother Apollos: I strongly urged him to go to you with the brothers. He was quite unwilling to go now, but he will go when he has the opportunity."

You might remember Apollos as the other leader that some in the church preferred over Paul. That makes me think a few things about this verse.

First, Paul really must not have cared about this rival. He not only wrote elsewhere that it didn't matter who got credit, that it was God at work, but he actually wanted Apollos to go to Corinth when Paul couldn't. I think that shows that Paul just wanted the gospel to be spread and the church to be served. No empire-building there.

Second, I wonder what Apollos had going on that made now a bad time. Obviously Apollos didn't feel compelled to do what Paul asked him to; he wasn't in a good position to go at the moment but would when he could. Maybe that little fact is in the Bible just to let us know that sometimes our calls aren't immediate or time-specific. Maybe a closed door today just means wait a little bit,

There are some good things to ponder here. The first is how my feeble attempts at ministry compare to Paul's all-consuming passion. I'm more likely to exclude competitors and rivals, or, more accurately, people I just don't like very well. And I like the idea of my own empire, a little Kingdom of Greg where everyone loves me and thinks I'm brilliant. I'm afraid any honest evaluation of my motives would make my efforts to serve actually look self-serving.

The second is that maybe I need to look at calling(s) not as a once-and-done sort of thing. Maybe what God wants me to be doing is more fluid than that. Maybe it changes by the month, or even the day. Maybe what He has me doing today is just to prepare me to do something different tomorrow. Instead of settling into a comfortable place, maybe I need to be asking for orders every day.

And maybe once I'm done with this book I need to move on to a different author. Paul's unrelenting energy for obedience is a hard example to follow.

No fear

Paul's instruction to the Corinthians regarding Timothy is kind of strange. "If Timothy comes, see to it that he has nothing to fear while he is with you, for he is carrying on the work of the Lord, just as I am. No one, then, should refuse to accept him. Send him on his way in peace so that he may return to me. I am expecting him along with the brothers." (1 Cor 16:9-10)

See to it that he has nothing to fear? What should make him afraid? What threat should there be in visiting fellow Christians? Paul suggests they might not accept him, and tries to assure the Corinthians that Timothy is one of the good guys.

It's interesting to me that this problem of acceptance was already a feature of the early church. It seems to me that we have it in spades. I know I can be pretty skeptical of a speaker who isn't Calvinist, and I've even been known to refuse to listen to someone who's too charismatic or conservative. I don't think that makes me abnormal.

But it's sad to think that we in the church can be so close-minded that some might fear to come to us. At a minimum shouldn't we be able to worship and fellowship with anyone who follows the same Lord we do? How much better wouldn't it be if we were secure enough to listen to new ideas.

Debate or even open conflict among believers should be nothing to fear if we model ourselves after Jesus. The only ones who were afraid of Jesus were demons and those who opposed His rule.

Paul saw that unless he ran some interference, Timothy was likely to have an unpleasant experience in the church at Corinth. I need to ask myself who I make feel unwelcome in my church. It's probably more people than I realize.

Opposition

I wonder if Paul saw anything the way I do.

In 1 Corinthians 16:5-9, he's making plans. He got through the business part of the letter and now he's passing on a few personal messages, and he starts by letting the Corinthians know he's coming for a visit. He says he'd like to make it a good long visit, but he's going to go to Macedonia first. And he intends to stay in Ephesus until Pentecost.

Why? Because he has this great opportunity to do work a lot of people are opposed to. Really - listen to verses 8 and 9: "But I will stay on at Ephesus until Pentecost, because a great door for effective work has opened to me, and there are many who oppose me."

Like most folks, I sometimes talk about doors opening and windows of opportunity. But to me, one of the characteristics I use to define that opportunity is the fact that there's not much resistance. I never say, "I knew that was God's leading because I had to kick the door in."

When I encounter resistance, I re-evaluate. I ask why I seem to be out of sync with so many people. I probe to learn why people don't seem to value what I'm trying to do. And in the end I often decide that God is signaling me to spend my time somewhere else.

But Paul's example makes me wonder about that approach. Paul has only one criteria for plowing ahead: are there souls to be won? The more the better. The opposition just means it will take a little longer.

That challenges me, because I think there's a key difference between how Paul and I approach ministry. Paul never forgets his role as co-worker with God, or more accurately foot soldier in the Lord's army. Paul discounts opposition because he knows nothing can stand against the will of God.

I think about what I can get done in my own strength. I say with my mouth but don't really expect to see in reality that God can change hearts, He can provide resources, He will sustain me with energy and enthusiasm. I say those things, but when I'm doing my relative combat power analysis I seldom take Him into account. Then it's me against the world.

No wonder I retreat so often.

Collection

Interestingly, after 15 chapters of "elders' business," Paul starts chapter 16 of Corinthians with some "deacons' business." He gives some very practical guidance on collecting and disbursing aid.

He writes (vv 1-4), "Now about the collection for God’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me."

Boy, in comparison to his rant on gifts, his eloquent exposition of love, and his detailed discussion of the question of the resurrection, this is pretty brief and straightforward. I think that's maybe because for Paul and the early church, there wasn't much controversy over the offering plate.

There is no question in Paul's mind that the Corinthians will give; he just has some advice on how to make it easier. Take out a little money every week, whatever makes sense based on your income, he says. Then when I come we'll empty those savings accounts and get it shipped to where it's needed.

Notice, no debate over percentages, no talk of before or after taxes, no discussion of all the other ways they're already supporting the church. Giving is what Christians do, Paul seems to be saying, the only thing left to talk about is how. And the Corinthians must have agreed, or there would have been more.

Our whole process is a lot more complicated than that, but we have more structure than the early church. We have a building and paid staff, which they didn't. Those things are huge blessings, but it means we have to have a certain amount in the offering plate. So we get into a lot of measurements trying to make sure we get enough money.

It makes me think there are a couple of things we don't do well. Church leadership isn't always as careful as it could be about where the money goes. And church members don't always see giving as automatic.

Maybe the point isn't really about money. Maybe money wasn't controversial for the Corinthians because the church was their first priority, so that's naturally where their first fruits went. Maybe we have to talk about it so much because there are a lot of other things higher on our list, usually things that make our lives here more comfortable.

Giving isn't a question of whether or how much for a truly obedient Christian. Whether is "Of course," and how much is "whatever's available." After that, as with Paul, it's just a matter of mechanics.

Imperishable

One thing you learn quickly in the military is the need for good supply lines. During field operations nothing lasts. Ammo and fuel get used up, food rots, boots wear out, uniforms tear, tanks throw their tracks. A lot of research goes into making things last longer because it's so hard to keep enough stuff coming. That's where things like MREs and stainless steel come from.

That's a reflection of the truth of our earthly lives: everything decays. Everything dies. All of this world is on a trajectory that ends in death.

Because of that, I don't think we really get the fill import of the promise Paul writes about in 1 Cor 15:50-58. It's a familiar passage, "Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed – in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." (vv51-52). Can you imagine what it really will be like, to exist as beings who don't get old or wear out? To start each day feeling strong and able, to do the things God sets us to without wearing out, to fulfill our purpose with no limitation from our physical selves - it's more really than I can get my head around.

It will happen, Paul says, in a flash, at the last trumpet. What a day that will be! That's the victory over death, and the decay we see around us and the aging we feel in our own bodies are just the slow work of that great enemy.

"The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law," Paul says. "But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain."

Ever wonder if it's worth it, this struggle to live obediently? Just think of the imperishable, never-aging, immortal you that will be. Yeah, more than worth it.