[OBW]

ZNP,

I have noted before that I am not opposed to metaphors. I am just opposed to the insistence that once a metaphor is provided, every possible parallel that you can imagine must have meaning to the discussion. But in this one case, we have now shown how to get two competing lines of thought out of the same metaphor. One says that Christianity is just like spectators at sporting events and that is pathetic. The other is that many of us are, in a limited way, engaged in a relationship with the "gifts" given to the church for our equipping that is somewhat like spectators at sporting events (and definitely not in every way).

The real issue is whether the metaphor is being used as evidence, or as a lens to view evidence. If you take the negative sports spectator view, you have to determine whether the metaphor actually describes what is, or it is instead being used as the evidence. In other words, is the metaphor accurately describing what is, or is it being used to redefine what is into what is not.

And while I managed to build a more complete (and positive) comparison out of spectators at sporting events, it is poor, at best. But I think it shows that if someone wants to arrive at a conclusion, there are ways to manipulate the appearance of evidence in your favor even if the actual evidence is not in your favor. There are ways to push a conclusion into something so that the conclusion that comes out of it is what you want.

I have gone back to the vine/branches metaphor for abiding. My recent conclusion is that vines and branches are never simply "abiding" in some passive, "wait on the dispensing" kind of way. There is always activity in process. It may not be visible, but it is happening. Even in the dormant parts of the year, the only thing dormant is the external. Plants grow downward when you can't see the upward part. But the connection is the point. If there is the connection, then everything happens as it should. Including the activities of "doing" something. If you must be abiding to do, then you have to do while you abide. It doesn't say that you have to abide, then do. And that once you are doing, you are no longer abiding.

That means that observing someone doing something is never evidence that they are not abiding. You have to be abiding to be doing. That is the vine/branch/fruit metaphor. And if you are not doing, there is a question about whether you are really abiding. Maybe your bark has been cut away and your drying remains just look like they are abiding. The evidence will be in no fruit. Bearing fruit requires actually doing. It requires "works." So abiding is not somehow at odds with works. It is only at odds with independent branches wandering around trying to do works without a source of supply. Those are the only "dead works."