The Death of Faith and Hope!

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13:13

Faith and hope will someday die, though. And frankly, folks, I can't wait.

Hold up, what? The death of faith and hope? What will we hold on to if faith and hope are gone?

Love.

Paul wrote one of his most oft quoted scriptures in 1 Corinthians 13:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

So what about faith and hope do I have a problem with, then? Nothing. Right now, we need both of these. In the second definition of the word, faith is defined thusly by dictionary.com: "belief that is not based on proof." And the same dictionary.com, in the first definition, describes hope as, "the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best." You may already see where I am going with this, but I will explain it nonetheless.

As we live now, God is not someone I can call up on the phone, or go and visit. Sure, prayer is an amazing gift that allows me to talk to God when I want to, or need to, or just because I want to chat. And I truly believe He speaks to me all the time, but not in an auditory manner, nor in face to face interaction. I have not touched the robes of Jesus, except in a figurative sense. And I have not gazed upon His likeness, excepting of course seeing his presence in those around me who emulate His traits (or even just simply the least of these). I believe, nonetheless. This is faith. I believe in something unseen and unproven by the rigorous standards of the scientific method. Hebrews 11:1 says, "now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." That about sums it up. Some find me crazy for doing so. Their unbelief, however, is irrelevant to my belief, and as I've heard said before, "I'd rather be judged a fool by man for this time, then by God for eternity." [I don't know who originally said this or if this is even an exact quote. Give me a heads up if you do.]

Hope is a different animal altogether, but it goes hand in hand with faith. We have hope about what is to come and only through what we have read in the scripture. Titus 3:7 says, ". . .having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life." This eternal life that we hope for is only possible through faith, and that is where they intertwine. But at first glance a word like "hope" looks a bit unsure. We hope that rain will not spoil our summer picnic. We hope that we will find a good job after we graduate from school. We hope that tomorrow will be better than today. None of this is assured or even possible to be so. But when it comes to something such as salvation, through faith we can be assured. It may rain on our picnic, and we may not get the job we want, and tomorrow the car may break down, but the hope that we are reconciled with God through Christ and therefore looking at a much brighter future, whether it be tomorrow or eternity, is grounded in faith alone.

So what about their deaths? I think Paul gives us the answer in 1 Corinthians 13 that I quoted earlier. Verse 12 states, "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." Right now we are in Plato's cave. We only see shadows of what reality truly is, and therefore must resort to faith and hope in what we believe to be true. Someday, however, we will know the truth with certainty. Someday we will be able to empirically prove that reality is what we had faith in all along. Because someday we will be face to face with the Creator. We will gaze upon God himself and walk with Jesus. And we will be able to reach out and touch Him and even embrace Him. (How much more empirical can you get?) Paul says in verse 10, "but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears." I believe this means that when faith and hope are dead, it is because we are with God in the flesh and there is no place for either. Completeness is love, and faith and hope are just parts in which we cling to at this moment out of necessity. Because, taking into account the rest of this passage, what need are prophecies when they have been fulfilled? What need are tongues to confess when experience can do the job. And what need is knowledge, (from a man's point of view) when all knowledge is granted from on high?

So faith and hope will be dead. For where is the need for faith when you are walking beside your God? And where is the need for hope when you are in the presence of the Creator of the universe in heaven? But there is always the need for love. Love transcends everything. Love is what this is all about. If you have any doubt, reread the Gospels. And not just the Gospels, Romans 5:8 says, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Wow.

I welcome a day when faith and hope are dead. When I am someday physically walking with God and asking him mundane questions that He finds quaint. I will be in the element I was intended to be in. And I will say a prayer over the graves of faith and hope. But I will never give up love. Love is what will get us to that place. Love is what reconciles ourselves to God. Love is what caused Jesus Christ to die for a poor and undeserved sinner like myself. And love is what I would like to feel for eternity, and will!

So for now, the three remain. Faith, hope, and love. But I long for the death of faith and hope, for the greatest of these, that will remain and reign forever, is Love!

[All verses quoted in this post are from the NIV. It is not the only translation, however, and given the fact that I do not know Greek, I can't speak to their veracity as direct translations. However, having surveyed numerous translations, the only one that seems to contradict my basic premise is the New Living Translation. It states the verse as following: "Three things will last forever--faith, hope, and love--and the greatest of these is love." Although I respect and appreciate various translations of the Bible (with all their individual probities and caveats), I find this particularly translated verse to be a bit dubious. Let me first say that I am not railing against the New Living Translation, nor did I have any ambition in defaming it in mind before I started researching this concept. My main objective is to talk about the death of faith and hope. The NLT may give some amazing insights to many things, but I take issue with this particular verse and no others (as I have not researched them). You have, no doubt, seen why. Either way, I believe the Gospels, as I have read them, and general logic seems to bear me out as far as what I am able to interpret. Correct me (with references) if you believe me to be in error.]

Too Young to Know. . .

To begin, let me say that I look younger than I actually am. I'm 33, but I look more like 23 (at least that's what many people tell me). And I understand that it is generally held that the younger you are, the less you tend to be concerned with anything other than what is within your particular sphere of influence, which tends to narrow as one's age declines. This, however true it may be for a large percentage, is a gross generalization and clearly does not apply to all people all the time. Case in point: musical knowledge and taste (specifically mine). I grew up listening to a large amount of Gospel music mixed with a bit of what my older sisters were into (think Duran Duran, Pet Shop Boys, Morrissey and other 80s and early 90s bands). I was, however, somewhat sheltered in my musical lexicon and for what I now consider to be good reason. I recall having my Cypress Hill - Temples of Boom CD requisitioned by my parents for reasons I just didn't get at the time. I don't pay attention to the lyrics, Mom, I just like the music! Yeah, right. But I digress. . .

Later, upon establishing myself in a freshman dormitory at college I was introduced to a range of musical tastes I could only have dreamed of previously, had I thought to do so. My roommate was enamored by all things psychedelic. My neighbor across the hall was hip to any Rap coming "straight from ATL." My friend down the hall touted the glory of Bluegrass and a large dosage of Led Zepplin and their contemporaries. I, myself, must also point out that as a child I would steal my mom's Simon & Garfunkel and The Doors records and play them on my Fisher Price record player and later my dad's phono (once he finally allowed me to touch it). I guess I wasn't as sheltered as I thought.

*For the kids out there, yes, I did just say record player. As in LPs. Vinyl. Not to be confused with 8 tracks, cassette tapes, CDs, or even MP3s -- which had yet to be invented, but would be soon. If you still don't know what I'm talking about Google it.*

What this brings me to is this: I have listened to and appreciated a wide range of music spanning decades and even centuries. "Great," you may be saying, "you've listened to some music. So what?" The "so what?" in this is that for years now I have noticed that people of a certain age seem to relish in saying, "you're too young to know this song." First of all, I am (as I mentioned before) older than I look. Secondly, this statement is simply ignorant and just plain rude. And while many may not mean it with the self-satisfied and smug glint in their eyes that I, more often than not, tend to perceive within this comment, many do. Let's discuss why this is wrong.

First, though, let me say that perhaps I am being overly sensitive and I will readily admit this could be a distinct possibility. But after mentioning the idea for this blog topic to a person who's opinion I respect and who is also quite a bit younger than myself expressed a strong interest in it I felt compelled to make it a reality. Either way, I am not the only person who has experienced this. And that makes this relevant, in my opinion, overly sensitive or not. Whatever. Now it's on the internet and that makes it true, right? Just a little joke. Let's continue.

I can look at my contemporaries who have children and recognize that I have NO idea what having a child is all about. I can see a fighter pilot drop bombs during a time of war in a video on YouTube and have no idea how he may feel (much less the people he is bombing). And I can even make sense of the fact that I never went to a Jimi Hendrix concert and passed joints across the aisle, relishing in an amazing show of drug-fueled, free-love-embracing, tuning-in-and-turning-off, hippie love-fests. None of this applies to basic music, though (Hendrix reference notwithstanding). And I may not know what it was like to watch Pink Floyd play live at Pompeii, but I love that set in ways I can't describe because I heard it. I have a recording of it. And it was before my time. Quite a bit so.

Wait. Hold on. You're telling me that there are these things called "recordings" that are made and that despite the fact that the band is not physically there, plugged in and in front of the mic with the PA blasting and fans cheering I can actually hear what they are playing and singing anytime I want to? Yes. You can. And you all know this and this is exactly why saying. "You're too young to know this song," is belittling to me and yourself. (Not that you have ever said this. This is for those who do. Not you, right?)

Folks, I've listened to Motzart and Bethoveen and I don't know anyone alive who held up a lighter at one of their shows. So what is it about The Eagles, The Beatles, Led Zepplin and even The Partridge Family that elicit such reactions? Could it be that we think we are super cool when we live through and experience something that a younger generation hasn't? "I was there when the Magna Carta was signed. You only oversaw the signing of the Constitution of the United States of America. I'm cooler than you. . ." We all are born, have a childhood, an adulthood, latter years and then succumb to the dust from which we came. The fact that I was born later than one and earlier than another has no bearing on anything other than fate or God's will.

I didn't choose when I was born. Did you? On the other hand I do choose what music I listen to, and that happens to be the category entitled "eclectic." I don't weigh my hand too heavily in any particular camp. To tell you the truth, I like a little bit from here and a little bit from there. I like some Rap (not gangsta!), I like some Gospel, I like a bit from Rock, Jazz, Blues, Soul, Psychedelic, Electronica, Classic Rock, a smidgen of Pop and yes, even some *gasp* Country, and this is not even an exhaustive list. Clearly "eclectic" is a good place to start when it comes to my tastes. And I get this from having come into contact with a lot of people who have turned me on to good music new and old.

I like music and I have sought out music that I would like and it has taken many forms. I guess some people will only ever listen to what they grew up with, but I have never wanted to limit myself in this way (other than staying away from what I personally find offensive and lyrics that are a bit, shall we say, salty?). I guess this is why it bugs me when I'm singing a song at work (a decidedly unconventional grocery store) and someone says to me, "You're too young to know this song." NO, I'm not! I like music of all types from all times. I like a lot of music you will never hear on the radio or Muzak, but we are listening to (and singing along to) Muzak at my store here, people. This is not some obscure DJ spinning LPs of bygone eras. This is music that is and for the foreseeable future will continue to be in constant rotation. So beside the fact that I seek out music both legitimately new as well as new to me, when I am singing a song that is playing on the PA at work it is clearly a song that I have heard before because, and let me make this perfectly clear, THEY ARE STILL PLAYING IT!

Sorry. Didn't mean to yell. But seriously, whatever music is playing when you walk into a store or restaurant, unless you are in an independent record store, cafe or something of that nature, it is safe to say that the personnel there to assist you in whatever fashion have heard it over and over ad nauseum for however long they have worked there. Long enough to learn a few lyrics and if they're crazy like me, to sing along (even perhaps with a bit of falsetto thrown in, à la Bee Gees).

So I guess what my rant really boils down to is this. If I pull an obscurity out of my rear end and begin singing something that one could only have heard if he was actually there at a show (that didn't include live recording) more than thirty some years ago, and you are one of the lucky ones to have attended, I guess the whole, "You're too young to know this," might apply. But if I'm heartily singing along to something anyone can hear on the local classic rock station, over the PA at work, or even through the love of music and diligent personal searches and recommendations from like-minded friends, and you tell me I'm "too young to know this". . .

I just might have to hand you my iPod.

You Want To See My What?!?!?

I work in a grocery store in Indiana. Because we have such amazing deals on wines and beers we sell a LOT of them. In July of 2010 a law was passed stating that ALL persons purchasing alcohol for carryout must present a valid ID (not the only state to do so, by the way). That was almost a year ago. With that being said, let's talk about my day (This actually happened a few days ago, but that's kind of irrelevant).

I'd rather not use this blog to rant about the mundane things that happen in my life, but this is different. What happened today has simply motivated me to express my opinions about a deeper subject. Allow me to explain. Today a woman took me to task for telling her that our store follows the law. Crazy, huh? We actually abide by those silly things? But I should explain. Here is the story and here is what I think about the deeper issue. But to preface, knowing that most people's knee-jerk reaction to this law coalesces with hers, I hope a different perspective might change that a bit. Perhaps not, but it's always good to at least check out the other side before dismissing it entirely. I'm willing to bet I've got some ideas that may not have occurred to many on the other side of the counter. Let's find out, shall we? First, a bit of exposition. . .

At my unnamed place of employment I oftentimes am located in what we refer to as the "demo station" where we hand out samples and demonstrate the products for people. When you are doing this particular task you are prominently displayed and not engaged in stocking shelves or some other task many people are loathe to tear you away from simply to ask you where the peanut butter is. Consequently, you get asked a lot of questions. "Where are the nuts?" "The shelf is empty, do you have more in the back?" etc. You are also somewhat of a captive audience. as straying too far from the demo station is generally frowned upon. Things can get dicey sometimes.

I've been lectured by well-meaning (and sometimes perhaps not) people on most subjects that can come to mind. I've been pestered by people who create a scene by drawing random customers into conversations they would not have otherwise thought they would be engaging in whilst shopping for the basic necessities of life (use your imagination). I've been embarrassed by people spouting their personal views on religion, politics, conspiracy theories, etc. that are oftentimes on the fringe of what the general public would consider rational. I've also been forced to endure conversations so laced with loud profanity that they belonged in a strip club more so than a grocery store, causing me to send apologetic glances toward mothers with children and anyone else who might have overheard. None of this happened today, though. Today I got a different sort of "pleasure." Today I was asked to break the law.

A customer walked up to me today to ask me if her 71-year-old father would have to show his ID to buy wine. I replied in the affirmative. It is, of course, the law. She told me she thought that if that were the case he would put back all of his potential purchases and leave. I informed her that this was the law and there is nothing I can do about it. I explained that if we were caught not following the law it would be a possibility for us to lose our liquor license and that could, in all likelihood, shut us down. We do a LARGE volume of liquor sales. She followed with the quintessential argument: he is clearly of age and therefore should not be forced to show an ID. As I thought we were just in a simple conversation I told her that I was in favor of the law as it did not discriminate and therefore leveled the playing field (simply one of my arguments as we shall see). She said the law was already discriminating as far as making the drinking age 21.

Now I could start to see that this was a different kind of conversation. No, let me rephrase, this was swiftly becoming an argument. But I didn't know when to quit (my fault, I was a philosophy major. . .). I replied that the aspect of the law requiring someone to be a certain age to participate in a certain practice was not the same thing. That was simply requiring someone to reach an age of reason and accountability and a very different situation. She was not satisfied with this. After elevating her tone and repeatedly referring to her 71-year-old father I recognized when things had gone too far and simply said, "Ma'am, I'm not going to debate this with you. It is the law and our store's policy. I'm sorry." Fortunately at this point she walked away and did not argue any further, nor did she run to one of my managers to complain about the insensitivity of the jerk handing out samples. For that I am grateful. But why was I subjected to this onslaught in the first place, and what did it gain? And what about that silly law? Is it really so silly? Is it as pointless as many suggest?

No, it's not silly and it's not pointless, but let's discuss my first question first. Why was I subjected to this? Notwithstanding is the fact that I wasn't even at a register. I've been privy to more than one irate customer who did not want to show their ID or forgot to bring it on their 2 hour trip simply to buy wine, but this was at a register. What I experienced today was not. But I digress. I have come to recognize that certain people have very strong feelings about this law and most are euphemistically referred to as "of a certain age." They are generally the older set. They are clearly legal and if the law weren't in place, truth be told, I wouldn't card them. But it is and I have to. So why do they get so angry? Honestly I don't know. My guess is they are unaccustomed to much change in their lives, and going back to showing an ID to purchase something they want is just that, change. They are also set in their ways (and I would argue) believe they are due a certain deference that young whipper-snappers like myself (ahem) should not necessarily get. I'll admit readily that with age comes wisdom and perspective (to some extent and to some people) and that we should respect our elders, but reaching the age of 70 does not allow you to shoot kids who don't stay off your lawn. Why should you be able to skirt any other law? Shake your fist or cane at the law the way you do the kids, would be my advice. Or even contact your local legislator, as I had nothing to do with the law in the first place. Now this lady arguing with me was not elderly (and let me say that the vast majority if any age simply show their ID and move on), but she was representing someone who was and I have no doubt he would have taken me to task more harshly than she did.

So now to the deeper question this not-so-subtle tête-à-tête raised: is this law really silly? I'll give you some reasons now why I don't think it is. Before I do that, however, it's confession time. When the law first was proposed and then took effect I kinda thought it was silly as well. Why should I card the old lady with the walker? Ludicrous, right? Well, only sort of. My first point is what I said to the lady at the demo counter today. The law removes any sort of discrimination. If you want to buy alcohol, you show an ID. If you are of age you get to buy it and that's that. It applies across the board. There is no age issue anywhere other than the difference between 20 years, eleven months and 31 days and 21years. And if you are sufficiently libertarian you may want to take up the issue of drinking age, but once again, I digress. Seriously, though, if you are of age and have an ID (which everyone should) there should not be a problem. This leads me to my next point.

Thirty seconds folks. Really. If you are 22 years old I will scrutinize your license quite a bit more than I will someone who is 72. But if you are this woman's 71 year old father, I'm going to look at your license long enough to get the year punched in correctly and that's about it. I am not looking for a fake. I am not even really checking the expiration date much or the picture or anything else like that. I just have to type in a date and I make it reasonably convincing. Let's face it, the elderly get their licenses renewed on time. They don't carry fakes. And they generally don't change hair color or hair styles as often as the young hipsters that float through my lines each day. So I'm sorry to inconvenience you for 30 seconds, but in the grand scheme, folks, it ain't so bad. And just for the record, I don't care how old you are. Your age issues are not my concern. People get older and that is what they do every day. I can't believe I'm 25. Just kidding. I'm 33 as of this writing. It is what it is and there you go. False modesty concerning age went out with bodices and meeting suitors in parlors with your mother present to keep you from showing your ankle. Heaven forbid you have the vapors. . . I find it comforting that a large percentage in between these two sets actually find it flattering to be carded. It's annoying at the same time, though, because I have to explain that it's the law. They know that already, though. But they don't care. It's nostalgia. And I am down with that.

Forty? Really? So you want to change the law to card anyone who looks over forty? What does that mean? When I was 20 and in college I worked with a guy at a movie theater that was 17. He bought me beer on a regular basis. He could have passed for forty. I kid you not. If John Lennon and Jerry Garcia had a baby it would look just like Chris. These people are rare, but they do exist. And looking at a total stranger and judging their age is impossible. I happen to be the other way around. Most people who don't know me think I'm in my early twenties. (Uh, add a decade, please. But I'm cool with it.) But the other way is true as well as exemplified in my buddy Chris. Having bar-tended and sold wine and beer retail for many years the one thing I know is that judging a stranger's age simply by looking at them doesn't work. So is forty really enough to cover any freaks of nature? (Sorry Chris.) No. So where do we start to discriminate? How about nowhere?

"What, I look like I'm forty?" I simply can't wait until I don't card someone and they say that to me. I'm going to say, "No, I thought you were sixty." And I will, too. Ask my anonymous coworkers. But in all seriousness, we, as cashiers on the front lines, will hear this question. "Why didn't you card me?" will be something I will have to answer with a bit of sarcasm and wit and just enough tact and humor to not be fired. And I'll do it, but it will get annoying. Just as when the "new" law took effect almost a year ago people took it out on cashiers around the state, they will do the same for this one, just with slightly altered wordage. This may seem like a petty reason for keeping the current law, but spend some time behind a cash register and come back and talk to me, k?

And while we're on the subject of guessing one's age I pose this query: Is Excise going to conduct a poll and find someone who people generally think looks forty and start sending them out to do stings? Will I be fined or arrested if I don't card this person? What if it is someone who a simple majority thinks looks under forty, but I think they look over? And who's judgment will be the last? Will I have to explain why I thought that laugh line and that particular wrinkle made me think "forty" while 51% screamed "card 'em?" I laugh at this, frankly. I've discussed my age vs. appearance issue above and I can tell you for certain that through many an unofficial poll people have placed me everywhere from high school to very close to my real age. But as I also alluded to, some people are on the other side of this equation and look older. Will I be fined for not carding someone who is 39? If that is the case, I will be carding everyone. And if you object you can be sold to by someone else or my manager can take the heat. Now, I have not read the proposed new law, but if my above situation is not punishable by legal recourse than we are basically back to where we were before any of this hoopla. It's at your own discretion and just don't sell to anyone under 21, forty is just a guideline to consider.

Okay, so I've already talked about discrimination, a negligible amount of time, aging differences and the possibility of fining a cashier for their (at best) guess of someone's age, let's now talk about money. Laws are passed by people whose salaries are paid by our taxes. When they are in session working on new laws or amending current ones they are using up time, and as the old adage goes: time is money. They spent time and money enacting this law to enforce carding everyone. Now they want to and have spent more time and money to amend it so as not to offend the sensitivities of those who feel they shouldn't have to spend 30 seconds to pull out a card they should always have on them. Is this fiscally responsible? No. I will admit that we are doing reasonably well in that area in Indiana, while many other states are rife with austerity measures that make this issue look like a schoolyard spat. But either way, every time my legislators (yes, I pay taxes and vote, they are mine as much as anyone's) spend their time on something like this I feel they are shortchanging other valid issues that could be worked on that get a bit more bang for the buck. Your tax buck. I have no specific examples, but good grief, if they have nothing better to do than this they should take some time off without pay and we'll call 'em when we need 'em. Don't forget that every minute our legislators work on one pet project is a minute (time and therefore money) they can't work on another one. Is this really what we want? legislators spending time enacting laws and then spending more time repealing or amending them? In some cases this may be necessary and good, but is it in this particular one? I don't think so.

So long story short I think we should keep the law. Will we? No. Legislation is already underway to amend it. Do I agree with this path? No. I have clearly stated that. Will I abide by the law? Yes, but with some caveats: I will (when things change) not card people who are clearly of age. But if I card someone and they don't have their license, tough luck. If I card a person who refuses to show their ID? Nope. If I card a person who gives me a hard time about any of this I will refer them to my manager (who are frankly awesome when it comes to dealing with difficult situations). And if I don't card someone who happens to be under 40 years of age and I am fined for it, I will take it to court in a heart beat!

We Now Join. . .

In the book of Revelation we are given view to some amazing things. Revelation is a book mostly glossed over in popular culture (with some exceptions in the realm of fiction, i.e. the Left Behind series) for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which being it's propensity to eschew needlepoint-worthy verses. But there is something in Revelation that has captured my mind and my heart and revealed itself to me in a profound and life-changing way.

I guess that's not so surprising. Revelation is just that, a revealing. An unveiling, if you will, of what is behind the scenes in a place that transcends our daily lives, the Earth, the solar system and indeed the Universe itself. But more on that in a moment. . . In the second definition of revelation, Dictionary.com states, "something revealed or disclosed, especially a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized." I can't think of anything to encapsulate my experience more than this. The curtain has been pulled back and I've been shown a bit of what is behind it. It is something I have never before realized, and it gives me great joy!

When dealing with many mind-bending issues inherent in scripture, it may be helpful to think about it in terms that are oftentimes hard to wrap our human minds around. God made the Heavens and the Earth in 6 days and then rested? Really? Well, there's always the 2 Peter 3:8 excuse: "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." But we are still left with 6 thousand years and not the eons that science tells us belong to Earth's history. Peter, I would propound, was not talking literally. In that time it was common to use a large number like 1,000 to be symbolic of eons or more. We talk about a "million different reasons" for something in current parlance, but don't really mean there are exactly a million reasons, but that there are a LOT. Peter is writing in that vein. I would take it a step further toward what I alluded to earlier. (The ins and outs of Creationism may hang in the balance, but that is something to be discussed at another time. It was just an example, relax. . .)

So we have established that God plays with Time a bit, but how? If we believe that God created everything (and you are free to disagree if you wish, but if so you most likely should stop reading now, as this won't make much sense to you) then God also created Time. I use Time with caps because I am talking about it as an overall concept and not simply the division of Earth's rotations and orbits around other bodies that help us regulate our days. Time, as a concept reduced to first principles, is basically duration. Past, present and future exist as duration separating individual events. We exist within these parameters and are a slave to the ravages of not enough hours in a day, age, and life expectancy. God does not. And He can do with it what pleases Him or remain outside of it as in much of what is seen in Revelation.

God, my friends, is completely outside of time. As hard as it is to wrap our minds around it, God, the creator of all things--including Time--is not subject to the Time constraints that plague the universe. He is above it, beyond it and rules over it because He is the creator of it. Now that we have that down, where do we go from here? I thought you'd never ask.

Revelation 4 gives us a backstage pass to the greatest show not on Earth! It transcends anything anyone can ever see, as we are yet living. I don't wish to die anytime soon, but if I reach my expiration date and find myself in the room I'm about to talk about, I won't bat an eye. This is the Throne Room in Heaven. You've got rainbows like emeralds, creatures that would blow your mind, elders with crowns of gold, a sea of glass, thunder and lightning, lamps blazing and someone *special* on the Throne. God. Awesome, if that word ever meant anything.

And this is only the description John was able to write down from his limited mindset as a human being trying to describe something most likely confusing and most assuredly beyond our capacity to fully understand. Who knows what it is really like? He described it as best as he could, but I personally think this description, though replete with detail, will pale in comparison to what is reality. But well-described or not, this is what is so revealing about Revelation! John was given the chance to see what is eternal and by definition, I would argue, also outside of Time. And by writing this to the seven churches and trickle down theology, we also have the pleasure of seeing behind that curtain. Praise God for that!

And now we're getting closer to the best part. Revelation 4:6-11 says this:
"In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. 7 The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. 8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings. Day and night they never stop saying:
‘Holy, holy, holy
is the Lord God Almighty,
who was, and is, and is to come.'
9 Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, 10 the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say:
11 'You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, 
for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.'"

I don't know about you, but this sounds to me like a cosmic worship service (or perhaps extra-cosmic is the better term since we are dealing with a scenario outside of our universe). And it never stops! "Day and night they never stop saying. . ." It's an eternal session of praise to God. This is my personal revelation to which I have been referring. The worship service never stops.

Now, I have been told that when two or more gather in His name, He is there (Matt. 18:20). So anytime we gather and worship with others, He is there with us. The God of the universe is in our presence and we are in His! Wow. How amazing is it that the one who created everything we know is willing to spend some time with us? How can it get any better? I can think of nothing. So let's extrapolate. . .

If God is outside of time, and there is an extra-cosmic worship service being attended at all times (outside of Time and perpetually) with all manner of creatures and men, and God has promised to be with us when two or more gather in his name, and we are standing in church singing our heads off to him. . . Yeah. The proverbial stars are aligned. When we worship God, he is there with us in the most real sense of the word. He meets us where we are and yet He is still on that throne being worshiped by these others.

For me this means only one thing. I worship the living God. The One. The Only. And when the music starts playing and the lyrics come up on the screen and I begin to sing, I say to myself while fighting back the tears of joy and thanksgiving which seek to invade my eyes, "we now join this worship service already in progress!"