Yesterday I posted about how Those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. I just wanted to point out another thought I had on that.

In many respects, the Church today still follows the example of Paul. In areas where the gospel has been established and a large body of believers exists to support ministers of the gospel, church workers are paid.

In places where the gospel is not prevalent, missionaries raise their own money (or serve bi-vocationally) and ask nothing from the people to whom they minister. This is the same pattern we see from Paul, and it’s what the Church still practices today.

Another question is: Are there people in America we are failing to reach because the only ministry model they’ve encountered collects an offering? Should there be more ministries that ask nothing from those whom they serve? What would this look like? Would it be house churches? Or would it be ministries functioning as extensions of an institutional church? Or perhaps both working together? Just a thought….

I know that’s a bold statement, but I didn’t say it. The apostle Paul did. That is a direct quote from 1 Corinthians 9:14, and it is preceded by saying that this is the Lord’s command (not Paul’s). Here’s the whole passage, in context:

This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don’t you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it (1 Corinthians 9:3-18, NIV, emphasis mine).

Matthew Henry wrote this in his commentary on v. 6:

[Paul] had a right to marry as well as other apostles, and to claim what was needful for his wife, and his children if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his own hands to get it. Those who seek to do our souls good, should have food provided for them. But he renounced his right, rather than hinder his success by claiming it. It is the people’s duty to maintain their minister. He may wave his right, as Paul did; but those transgress a precept of Christ, who deny or withhold due support.

In other words, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel have the right to earn their living from it. This is the modern day pastor (which corresponds more to the biblical role of elder). Paul chose to serve in bi-vocational ministry, that is, he chose to earn his living from a separate job, that of tentmaking. But that was Paul’s choice. Paul makes it clear that biblically, ministers have a RIGHT to earn their living from preaching the gospel.

However, Paul also says that voluntary preachers receive a reward for their duties, while those who exercise their right to a salary “simply discharge the trust committed to [them].” In other words, their vocation is no better than the local plumber, teacher, tax collector, or nurse. Each of these is commanded to be a full-time minister of the gospel (all believers), but some may earn their living from it as a right, which has clearly been commanded by the Lord.

Paul recognized that as a missionary in his context, bi-vocational ministry was a more effective approach. He willingly sets aside his right to financial support so that people will not think his message is just a fancy speech designed to get money. Some Greek orators made their living by traveling and entertaining audiences with speeches. Others formed schools and charged students for lectures. Paul does not want anyone to think his message is motivated by selfish concerns. But Paul’s willingness to support himself does not change the Lord’s command. Ministers of the gospel have a right to financial support, and believers have an obligation to provide that support.

The command is not aimed solely at vocational ministers so that they should run around demanding their support (although it would be biblically warranted if their “flock” didn’t support them), the command appears to target all believers so that they recognize that it is their responsibility to support the work of the gospel.

1 Timothy 5:17-20 says:

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

Elders here are appointed leaders, not merely those recognized because of their age and experience. Those folks are actually addressed in v. 1: “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father.” In Acts 14:23, “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.” “Double honor” in the 1 Timothy 5 passage does not refer to salary, but this passage does reiterate the point that “the worker deserves his wages.” It also establishes that those elders whose work is preaching and teaching are serving in an honorable vocation. It is a respectable career choice.

This becomes even more pertinent as more and more heresies abound and the resurrection of false teachings from the past continues. It is extremely beneficial to the church to have individuals who receive in-depth training in the bible, church history, theology, and practical ministry (counseling, helping people cope with traumatic events, addiction therapy, etc.). There is nothing wrong with this, indeed it is very helpful to the Church. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford to go to seminary to learn about church history, biblical languages, etc. Many more don’t have the opportunity to go, and even more do not have the intellectual capacity to retain this knowledge. This doesn’t invalidate the education and training, however. A lot of people aren’t smart enough to go to medical school, but we’re all glad that we have doctors. The same is true of pastors. They are not better than other believers because of their training, but they are to be respected and should be able to earn a living from their work.

Not everyone is meant to serve in this role. Ephesians 4:11-13 says:

It was [God] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Clearly not all are called to fulfill these roles in the Church. The purpose of these roles is to prepare God’s people for good works of service, building up the body of Christ “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.” Since this hasn’t happened yet, we still need people to fulfill these roles. Not just anyone should jump into these roles, either. James 3:1 says:

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

God apparently even has a higher standard of judgment for those who teach His people. This should not be taken lightly. To ensure that not just anyone became an elder, Paul set up standards for them. Hear his words in Titus 1:5-9:

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

There you have it, the requirements of an elder and parts of his job description, and a reiteration of the fact that it is an appointed position. Paul also mentions here (and in several other places) that elders should not pursue dishonest gain. This precludes those folks who would serve in these roles solely to make money, or to make it dishonestly (such as through prosperity teachings). That would be wrong. But it doesn’t preclude them from making an honest living from preaching and teaching the gospel.

There are a lot more scripture passages that we could explore, but this post is long enough as it is. It is a topic that deserves attention, though. And it is one I should have posted at least a few weeks ago before I started shifting some of my terminology on this blog. I apologize for not sharing these thoughts sooner with you, my readers. I know I have written blog posts with the opposite stance in the past, but the clear teachings of the word of God prevail, as explained above. Undoubtedly there will be more discussion on this issue, feel free to comment and read the comments to gain more insight.

I was listening to a podcast on Issues Etc. earlier this week and I was struck by a profound thought. The title of the podcast was “The Vocation of Minister.” I’d normally link directly to it but the site appears to be down as I’m writing this, nothing will load.

The guest speaker was talking about how the word minister means “servant,” but most churches today prefer to look to ministers as leaders or CEO’s, and ministers are all too happy to accept this role. The proper role of a minister is that of a servant, and his chief task is to “administer” what God has given, His gifts.

The guest speaker then said this:

“We approach [the vocation of the minister] as a social issue, we look at what the people want. Let’s look at the word ministry. There’s an old saying… ‘The customer is always right.’ The customer knows what he wants and if you’re going to serve the customer, you better give him what he wants or you’re not going to do business with him. That’s precisely wrong when it comes to the church, because the customer is always wrong. And God is always right.

In other words, we must approach the vocation of the minister theologically (not socially). A minister of God must often preach God’s Law and His Gospel to people who don’t want any part of it. Often people don’t realize the depth of their sinfulness (including me), and they must hear God’s Law. Other times the Law has done its work and people have been cut to the heart, then they need to hear the Gospel. The customer (not a good term but I’m using it simply to make a point) is always wrong. He doesn’t want what he really needs. I am so often guilty of this. I often want authenticity, community, and whatever – but what I really need is the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ. These other things are secondary to this primary need.

It is too easy to lose sight of Christ as the focal point of our churches when we operate with the assumption that the folks in the pews are right. That’s how we get mega-churches that acquiesce to, rather than transform, culture. Give the people what they want and you will grow numerically, but that’s not how ministry progress ought to be measured.

Today is the first day of Lent, a 40 day season of the historical church year leading up to Easter, also metaphorically corresponding to the 40 days Jesus was tempted while fasting in the desert. Originally, Lent was a period of intense fasting and prayer that believers went through prior to being baptized at the Easter Vigil. It then became a period where believers abstained from eating meat and concentrated on prayer. Today many Orthodox and Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays (hence why there are so many “Fish Fry’s” on Fridays and fish specials during this time of year). Other evangelical traditions encourage people to give something up for Lent, in order to focus on scripture and prayer.

The most popular thing people are giving up for Lent this year is Facebook. And then of course there is the old joke, “I’m giving up giving something up for Lent.”

Me personally, I’m giving up for Lent. I’m going to stop trying to base my spirituality on my own performance. I’m going to try to stop relying on myself to obtain victory over sin in my life. I’m simply going to give up, and give it all over to Christ. And hopefully I make this a life-long change.

What are you giving up for Lent?

Dick Rockenbach contacted me via email about this, then he posted it on Facebook:

This made me start wondering about codependency and the church’s relationship with clergy members. Here’s the definition of codependency from Way 2 Hope, an organization that helps those in codependent relationships:

Codependency is a condition that results in a dysfunctional relationship between the codependent and other people. A codependent is addicted to helping someone. They need to be needed. This addiction is sometimes so strong, the codependent will cause the other person to continue to be needy. This behavior is called enabling. The enabler will purposefully overlook someone abusing a child, will call in sick for someone suffering from addiction, will put roadblocks to prevent their child from becoming independent, or even keep a sick family member from getting the treatment that would make them well. These are behaviors common to codependents. A codependent often suffers from a ‘Messiah Complex’ where he sees problems with everyone and sees himself as the only person who can help. Here is where I need to work…trying to be ‘Mr. Fixit’ for everyone…even those who don’t feel they need anything fixed. A codependent counselor (common) will never think your sessions are done. In fact, they often create issues that weren’t there just so they can continue to feel they’re an important, no, essential part of your life. This is one of the reasons I always spend the first counseling session evaluating the problem and setting up a schedule of sessions to complete the work. If we’re not making progress, I don’t want to become the person you feel you have to take every problem to…it’s too addictive to me. That’s what codependence is…an addiction to being needed.

So how did this codependency develop? Clearly it is because of clergy-members’ addiction to being needed. This addiction is easy for any of us to fall into, but especially for those who are in positions where people come to them for help. But this doesn’t let the so-called “lay people” off the hook, either. They enable the clergy by continuing to look to them as having the answers to all of life’s problems. Thus the clergy maintain codependency among the “laity” by being all too eager to give an answer to any question, even when the answer is not or cannot be known, and the “laity” enable the clergy by remaining ignorant and relying on them for spiritual growth.

This has birthed not a few generations of biblically illiterate believers, returning us to the sacerdotalism that Martin Luther and the Reformers fought so hard to eradicate. Thanks to Sunday School (which, at its inception, was heavily opposed on grounds that it would destroy the father’s role as the spiritual head of his family), we now have codependency between humans rather than independence from man and dependence only upon Christ.

But it is not only clergy and laity who do this. This also happens among many other informal relationships, where those who are recognized as leaders become codependent with their followers/disciples, and home-based fellowships become cult-like in their codependency. Neither institutional nor organic ministry models are exempt.

But simply identifying the problem doesn’t help. What can be done to change this? The first important thing to understand is that codependency is possible for anyone because of mankind’s propensity towards sin, particularly pride and idolatry. Second, we must realize that we have a loving God who is able to set us free from codependent relationships and direct us toward Himself. Third, we must break the cycle. This means that leaders must be willing to admit when they don’t know the answers, and be willing to refer people to other sources for help and knowledge, teaching disciples to feed themselves, not just to wait for the leader’s spoon. Followers must stop enabling the leaders and begin seeking answers and help from other sources, most specifically from Christ Himself via His Word.

By the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit will enable us in a positive way to break free from the spiritually dangerous cycle of codependency, moving on towards maturity and freedom in Christ.

I’m currently reading a book entitled The Spirituality of the Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals by Gene Edward Veith, Jr. It’s been a very enlightening book that talks about what constitutes genuine spirituality. I was struck by this quote:

By “spirituality,” I do not mean any kind of content-free, theologically-vacuous quest for transcendent experiences for their own sake. Rather, “spirituality” has to do precisely with the content, what fills abstract theology, mundane institutions, and the everyday life of the Christian with their real substance.

The quest for this kind of spirituality is, I think, genuine and important. Many people today, in our shallow, mass-produced, materialistic culture, yearn for depth, for richness, for transcendence. Many do not even find spiritual substance in their churches, many of which have adopted the slick superficialities and manipulative commercialism of American pop culture, mutating into what can only be described as pop-Christianity. Interestingly, many casualties of pop-Christianity are drifting into older faiths that do seem to offer a measure of spiritual substance. A huge exodus is taking place from Protestantism into the Roman Catholic Church and, perhaps even more significantly, into Eastern Orthodoxy (p. 14).

In the past I’ve written that for most folks in our society, it is cool to search for God, but it’s not so cool to find Him, but the meaningless fad “spirituality” that our culture seems obsessed with seems to run deeper than just our culture. This culture has also permeated the church. I myself have even spoken with an Eastern Orthodox priest and my wife and I attended a young adult ministry of the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because we have been yearning for substance, not the fluff that consumes our culture and most Protestant churches.

Much of American Protestantism has become little more than another false religion on the smorgasbord of faith groups, because it has drifted into moralism, speculation, and/or mysticism – all which are us striving towards God. But the reality of true Christian spirituality is that all human effort to reach God is futile. Christianity is all about what God does, not what we do.

Fluffy teaching may show me how to be positive, it may even help me become a better person. The Law is good at making us feel guilty about our sins and eager to try harder next time. The problem is, we always fail. We can never be good enough. That’s why we also need to hear the Gospel: Jesus Christ was credited with our sins and we are credited with His righteousness. What gets us into heaven isn’t how good we are, it’s how perfect Jesus is. Teaching with real substance uses the Law to show me my sin, but then shows me my Savior through the Gospel.

To purchase this book, follow the link below:

I’ve been reading Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion lately, and I ran across a great point I wanted to share:

“Fix-the-church books almost always figure that declining church attendance … means the church has messed something up. Even though the new crop of church books decry the old church-growth models, they still operate with the same basic assumption: namely, that churches should be growing and something is wrong with the church that isn’t.

This assumption, however, is alien to the New Testament. Didn’t Jesus say tell us that “the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matt. 7:14)? Wasn’t the early church of Philadelphia commended by the Lord Jesus even though they were facing opposition and had “little power” (Rev. 3:7-13)? There is simply no biblical teaching to indicate that church size is the measure of success.

I’ve written before that ministry progress is not measured by numerical growth, but by the creation of disciples who make other disciples. But this post is exposing the double standard, those who would “have their cake and eat it, too.”

Authors like George Barna like to use statistics showing the decline in church attendance to damn the church, but then quickly defend the 5-person house church because “progress is not measured by numbers.” So if the institutional church is losing numbers, it is always because they are doing church wrong. But if organic churches are not growing, then it’s for some other reason. All I’m asking for here is fairness. Isn’t it possible that a particular church isn’t growing because it is rightly teaching Law and Gospel and people don’t like to hear it? Isn’t it possible that a particular organic church isn’t growing because of the home leader’s pride? It works both ways, which is why numbers are not a good indicator of spiritual maturity nor ministry progress, no matter what church model we’re discussing.

I remember listening to Kurt Cobain singing “come as you are” in the 90’s. I also remember hearing dozens of churches latch on to this statement. Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t think people need to be all polished up before coming to Jesus, nor do I think folks need to dress up on Sunday mornings (I always wear jeans and a t-shirt). But I think “come as you are” sometimes gets interpreted as “you are acceptable just as you are,” and that’s simply not true.

I know that statement just raised red flags in a few readers’ minds, but hear me out. I absolutely think people should come to Jesus in whatever state they are currently in. After all, if people could get free from sin all by themselves why would they need Jesus? But people must also understand that outside of Christ they are completely unacceptable to God. Consider the following quote:

Truth be told, Christ has not welcomed you just the way you are. He has paid the dearest price of all in order to welcome you: sacrificing His life for you on the cross. Christ welcomed you through the anguish of His betrayal, trial, and death. He did not welcome you freely but in order to set you free from your sins! (LSB, p. 1907).

God is holy. The word holy literally means “set apart, consecrated.” Holiness is like light, and anything else is darkness. When light enters a room, darkness flees. God cannot coexist with evil, and apart from the shed blood of Jesus Christ we are completely unacceptable to Him, we cannot come near Him. But Jesus Christ has created the way to the Father by taking our place on the cross, serving our death sentence. His righteousness gets credited to our account by faith and we thereby become acceptable to God.

Too many people have a view of justification that assumes God simply lets our sins slide. The problem is, “the wages of sin is death,” (Romans 6:23), they must be paid for. Jesus pays for them at Calvary and now offers us eternal life as a gift, which is what the rest of Romans 6:23 says: “But the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

So please come as you are, but know that you are entirely unacceptable to God apart from the righteousness that is imparted to you through a living faith in Jesus Christ.

“Church leadership acting as CEO’s of nonprofit organizations complete with ‘hiring and firing’ abilities, is a relatively novel development in the history of Christianity and is way outside of the Biblical framework.”

Last I checked, no one likes the people who do what God tells them to do. Jesus Himself was abandoned, brutally tortured and crucified. Most of the Old Testament prophets went about alone and destitute. John the Baptist was beheaded. All but one of the apostles were martyred. Yet for some crazy reason church governments are set up in such a way that a man of God can be ‘fired’ if a few people don’t like him. Odd… and unbiblical.

This problem stems from the way that pastors and elders are placed into leadership. In the New Testament leaders were recognized and then appointed (usually from within). They didn’t go through a “hiring process,” instead they went through a “discipleship process” by which leaders were developed, not recruited. So in honesty, the entire approach of the institutional church to professional clergy is jacked up.

So instead of going on that tirade again, let me propose three potential solutions. I’ve promised to stop critiquing if I don’t offer suggestions for improvement, so here are my ideas. The first two are suggestions for institutional models, and the final two are for organic models:

(Institutional) Allow a group of outside church leaders to appoint pastors to your congregation, who can only be removed under strict circumstances (such as sexual misconduct or dereliction of duty). Simply not liking the pastor or having personal conflicts would not be sufficient grounds to remove him. The pastor is to continually pray to God, reevaluating his call through prayer – not by a congregation’s consensus. Those congregants who dislike the pastor are free to leave. The pastor is free to resign at any time if God has lead him to do so in his prayer life.

(Institutional) Pastors must be ordained in order to serve in the pastoral office. The ordained pastor is then “called” by a congregation, and the pastor can either accept or reject that call. Once a pastor accepts a “call,” he is installed as that congregation’s pastor. The pastor is free to resign or to accept a call from another congregation, but he cannot be fired by the congregation. If a pastor commits a serious offense which violates scripture, outside impartial leadership (a district superintendent or bishop, for instance) can step in and revoke the pastor’s ordination. If the pastor is not ordained, he is no longer able to serve in the pastoral office. His call is never retracted, the pastor simply loses his ordination and is no longer eligible to fulfill the call. Only outside leadership would be able to publicly announce that a pastor has lost his ordination.

(Organic) Leaders are organically grown from within, recognized by the local gathered believers, and appointed to positions of leadership within the local assembly. If that leader violates scripture he can be exhorted, and if things don’t get better he can be publicly “demoted.” The local believers only have the authority to challenge the leaders on the basis of scripture, not on personal claims, preferences, or differences in ministry philosophy.

(Organic) Leaders are organically grown from within and then recognized by the local gathered believers. Christ is the Head of the Body, not any man, so all men submit solely to Christ’s leadership and seek Him earnestly in prayer. No one holds authority over another, some are simply shown respect because their leadership ability and wisdom is self-evident. All are free to mutually encourage and exhort one another from the Word of God, and all respectfully consider others’ viewpoints and respond in truth and love. EVERYONE is functioning as a called, full-time minister, so no one is looking to anyone as a “professional” leader.

Perhaps you have a better suggestion? Let me know! Thoughts on any of these?

I read a great post the other day on Samantha Krieger’s blog entitled “Marriage: Built to Last.” I wrote a comment that essentially became a post, so I wanted to share it.

“Marriage is hard work.” Wow, is it. Tiffany and I just celebrated three years of marriage and while it is rewarding, it has not been without some HARD work. My biggest advice to newlyweds or those considering marriage: communication skills. Yeah, yeah, everyone says that. Blah blah blah. I didn’t listen, either. Men and women truly do communicate in drastically different ways. It’s fine once you begin to learn how to speak and understand the other partner’s language, but it takes time, trial and error.

And I certainly had to come to grip with how imperfect I am. Marriage takes you to the next step of adult maturity: learning to think in terms of “we” not “I.” I think this comes a little easier for women, but I could be wrong. For me it is still a struggle. Marriage is not two separate lives becoming one in a 50/50 relationship, like everyone says. It’s two lives re-orienting on one journey, side by side, giving everything: 100/100.

But most importantly, it teaches us about Jesus. Jesus didn’t use marriage as an analogy for no reason. The Church is His bride, a slightly more comfortable image for women perhaps, but something about which both genders have a lot to learn. Jesus has “put His Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come” (2 Corinthians 1:22).

“And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory” (Ephesians 1:13-14).

This is the imagery I’ve had on my mind most recently: the Holy Spirit is our engagement ring. He has sealed us in Christ as His bride-to-be, proposing to us on the cross through our baptism. As we learn to love another human being in all of her imperfection, we see how Christ can love us. It’s humbling.

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. . . . This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband” (Ephesians 5:25-28, 33).

The Church, His Bride, is presented to Him through the Holy Spirit, having been cleansed “by the washing with water through the word” (baptism) and given the most radiant wedding dress in all creation. What a glorious marriage feast it will be!

Meanwhile we receive a small foretaste of the feast to come, daily lessons of learning to love unconditionally. And learning to receive unconditional love. Both can be painful, and both take work. And submission. Submit to Christ, He has given everything for you. Although free, it was not cheap.