Words'nTone

“…Behold, the sower went out to sow; as he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road…seed fell on the rocky ground…seed fell among the thorns…seeds fell into the good soil…” (Mark 4)

Certainly not a final look at Mark 4’s parable of the Sower who sows, but the conclusion of this string of re-considerations…

Third, take a good hard look at the crops being produced (or not produced).  There are three sowings that produce poor results and then there are three corresponding good harvests as a result of sowing.  Three, poor harvests, and three good harvests.

Until recently, I hadn’t noticed this parallel.  And that’s probably what this is, a literacy device to indicate that God in His sovereignty will ultimately counter poor harvests with harvests of plenty: As there are three unfruitful results from seed sown, and there are, in God’s grand design and providence, despite the circumstances and situations and acceptance of the Gospel and opposition to Christians, there will be good and plentiful harvests.  The apparent play on poor vs. good harvests should also dissuade us from being too literal on the causes for poor harvests (and in fact none are given for good and plentiful harvests of 30-, 60-, and 100-fold, just that the soil was good—with no discussion on how it was made good).  Although there is some merit in the obvious connection to how people respond to the Gospel and the circumstances that provoke or prove to have poor results, the point is that there will be those for whom the Gospel will not produce good harvests.  The appearance of the work of the Gospel in the world is one where there are barriers related to the sinful condition of man and the natural world’s seductions and temptations.

One would think, in the conclusion to the parable Jesus would have instructed his disciples to not throw seed in places that will produce poor, fruitless harvests.  No, He did not do that.  And that He did not is both significant and instructive.  He expected that we would cover the fields with seed, lavishing covering it, and in the process some seed would end up on the paths in and around the fields, in rocky parts throughout the fields, and on places in the fields untilled and filled with brush (thorns).  He did not care that we would sow so carelessly.  Neither should we.

The three crowds of poor harvests might parallel the reasons, in general, of why people reject or eventually disregard the Gospel.  But the parallel used in juxtaposing the three poor harvests with the three fruitful harvests point more importantly to how the church should approach evangelism—that is, living and announcing the arrival of the Kingdom of God.  First, the appearance (i.e., the seen realm) of poor harvests indicate that the work of the Gospel is difficult, filled with potential barriers, however, in the end the sowing is not in vain for there will be a fruitful harvest.  This is to provoke perseverance, steadfastness, and faithfulness among the community of believers.  Second, the sowing (i.e., the work of the ministry of the Gospel) is still to be done lavishly, carelessly in that the sowing will fall on poor soil.  In this, the congregation does not know who is and what poor soil is and who and what good soil is.  They are just called to sow the seed of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.  Just sow.

He began to teach again by the sea And such a very large crowd gathered to Him that He got into a boat in the sea and sat down; and the whole crowd was by the sea on the land. And He was teaching them many things in parables, and was saying to them in His teaching, “Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow; as he was sowing, some seed fell...(Mark 1:1ff)

Here I continue my thoughts on Mark’s parable of the Sower who sows from his 4th chapter:

Second, there is an individualistic vs. corporate tension in this parable which needs to be worked out in order to understand the significance of this and Jesus’ other teachings. 

What struck me is that we seem to assume this parable is talking to the individual, or is to be applied to the individual.  I even took it that way until recently.  As there is nothing in the text to beg the question, “What kind of soil are you?,” there is also no need to apply the significance of this parable to the individual.  In fact, the text itself pushes the application in a corporate direction.  Now of course, if one thinks the individual is being address, then the four “soils” could represent individuals.

• “Some seed fell beside the road”
• “Other seed fell on the rocky ground”
• “Other seed fell among the thorns”
• “Other seeds fell into the good soil”

Thus the road, the rocky ground, the thorns, and the good soil are individuals and therefore, of course, we could “read into” this and think of the individual as a solitary hearer.  But here are two reasons not to take the application individualistically.  First, the explanation given by Jesus himself could just as easily be taken corporately.

• “These are the ones who are beside the road… when they hear”
• “These are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places… when they hear the word”
• “Others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard the word”
• “Those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil… they hear the word”

Second, the picture of the story behind the parable itself.  Here, it is better seen as a field or fields where seed is being sown by a farmer (albeit, in this parable, the Master-Farmer) who spreads the seed and while doing so some seed falls on the road (or paths) along side the field (or those that cut through the field), some falls on parts of the field that are rocky, some in unkempt, weedy, or thorny ground in and around the field, and some seed falls on the good soil of the field itself.  It is not like the farmer is sowing his seed on the road and on the rocks and in the thorns independently from sowing in the field.  So the fact that the plural is used here is significant in that the place sown implies a corporate application, perhaps, implying church communities.  In fact since the intended hearers of this parable is the church community (and for as long as this age continues, many church communities), the church—i.e., individual church communities—are most likely “those who hear the word” and have either a poor or good harvest.  Maybe even implying that some in the congregation will hear the word of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and their response will be like the poor harvest, that is unfruitful; and some of the congregation will hear the word of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and will respond like the three-fold abundant harvest of plenty.

This is important for churches to hear.  Perhaps it uncomfortably shifts the burden to respond to this parable away from the outsider and the non-churched to the church—your church community.  I understand this is not a popular interpretation, nor is it a comfortable one.  And, for sure, there are great reasons to dislike it and want the application to remain the burden of the unchurched and non-Christian.  But the text doesn’t seem to let the church—your church—off the hook of judgment here.  Even the Isaiah 6 (vv 9-10) context given by the reference in Mark 4:10 implies that Jesus’ words are for the church, the people of God, to respond.  As Isaiah’s words were directed to the disobedience community of God in the Old Testament, there is no reason to think less here, that is, that Mark uses the parable of Jesus (i.e., the Master-Sower) to speak to the disobedience church regarding their obedience and concept of evangelism.

“As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables.  And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that While seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven.”

And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables?” (Mark 4:10-13).

A little more unpacking on my observations regarding the parable of the Sower who sows in Mark 4.  Here I will highlight further the first observation I made:

First, this parable, above all other parables is a pattern-parable, an interpretive key and tool for unlocking the meaning of other parables and teachings of Jesus.

1. There is mystery in the Gospel of the Kingdom of God: On the one hand, Jesus tells his disciples that the mystery of the Kingdom of God has been given to them, on the other hand it is a fulfillment of a mystery.  They are to know (ought to know) the “secret,” namely that the long awaited, promised Davidic-messianic-kingdom has arrived in Jesus’ coming as a man, who would eventually be put to death on a cross, but would also be raised from the dead.  It is secret, or mystery, in that it is revealed to the disciples that the arrival of the kingdom of which Jesus speaks is this promised kingdom.  It is also mystery because it is God’s thing, something (an act and activity) that solely belongs to God, first to bring about and second to reveal.  We might not like this, but this is what the texts says and implies.  It is mystery, also, because the arrival and activity of the Kingdom of God is paradoxical, that is it is “not of this world.” It is a movement and act of God invading His earthly creation through the birth, life, teaching, and eventual, death and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God, and as well, the coming of the Spirit.



2. The message of the Gospel of the Kingdom is not open to all—not readily understandable, nor easily accessed.  This act of God, that is the inauguration of His Kingdom, must be revelation and received by faith.  A church or a person can be as creative as possible with the sowing, but it is still in God’s ultimate act for the good harvest.  This is counter-intuitive to most modern church growth and evangelistic approaches.  This is why “church work” and the ministry of evangelism is not just about church growth (as in numbers), but in establishing, revealing, and fulfilling the Kingdom of God in all aspects of life (and not just in the privatized acts of an individual, but in the systems and realms of human existence).

He began to teach again by the sea And such a very large crowd gathered to Him that He got into a boat in the sea and sat down; and the whole crowd was by the sea on the land. And He was teaching them many things in parables, and was saying to them in His teaching, “Listen to this! Behold, the sower went out to sow; as he was sowing, some seed fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate it up. Other seed fell on the rocky ground where it did not have much soil; and immediately it sprang up because it had no depth of soil. And after the sun had risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. Other seed fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked it, and it yielded no crop.  Other seeds fell into the good soil, and as they grew up and increased, they yielded a crop and produced thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold.” And He was saying, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

As soon as He was alone, His followers, along with the twelve, began asking Him about the parables.  And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that While seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven.”

And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables? The sower sows the word. These are the ones who are beside the road where the word is sown; and when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes away the word which has been sown in them. In a similar way these are the ones on whom seed was sown on the rocky places, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; and they have no firm root in themselves, but are only temporary; then, when affliction or persecution arises because of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones on whom seed was sown among the thorns; these are the ones who have heard the word, but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.  And those are the ones on whom seed was sown on the good soil; and they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold” (Mark 4:1-20).

I have spent the last three years in close study of Mark, and especially chapter 4, the Sower who sows.  In fact, you can read my Rough Cut exegetical essay, The parable of the Sower who sows.  In further study of this text, I have made some more observations I believe worth considering:

First, this parable, above all other parables is a pattern-parable, an interpretive key and tool for unlocking the meaning of other parables and teachings of Jesus.  Briefly, 1) there is mystery, namely that the arrival of the Kingdom fulfills the OT prophetic mystery of God’s coming (and I’d include paradoxical and still mystery in how it all works); 2) the message of the Gospel of the Kingdom is not open to all—not readily understandable, nor easily accessed (this is counter-intuitive to most modern church growth and evangelistic approaches); 3) the message of Jesus, that is, the arrival of the Kingdom has come and continues to come in stealth, it is hidden; and 4) there is a seen and unseen aspect to Jesus’ arrival and the inauguration of the Kingdom (by which I mean, what is observable is not the whole matter or whole story).

Second, there is an individualistic vs. corporate tension in this parable which needs to be worked out in order to understand the significance of this and Jesus’ other teachings.  That is, as we typically read this parable, we focus on its application to the individual.  How does this apply to me personally?  I am no-longer convinced of this hermeneutical approach regarding this parable.  The sense of the parable is corporate—meaning it should be applied beyond each one who hears the Gospel and be applied to how the Church is being built corporately.  This is tough to grasp—and I understand the difficulty here.  What I mean is, the parable can just as easily be taken to mean that groups of people who have the word (i.e., the seed) sown respond in different ways.  The one’s who or those who…is repeated, indicating that Mark could have had “church communities” in mind.  That is, there will be those who respond with poor results and those who respond with positive results.  This approach gives stronger significance of the parable to churches, one for which fear and trembling should be acknowledged.

Third, take a good hard look at the crops being produced (or not produced).  There are three sowings that produce poor results and then there are three corresponding good harvests as a result of sowing.  Three and three.  Frankly I hadn’t noticed that until recently.  This tells me that Jesus (and Mark) most likely was using these as examples, that is, these are examples of poor harvests and examples of good harvests.  This should help us to not be so literal on the correspondences we make between the type of soil and the particular contemporary hearers (whether they be individuals or communities).

I know these three deserve some unpacking; but, these observations should help us understand better how significant the parable of the Sower who sows is to the church, God’s intended hearers of the Marken Gospel.

Read further, The parable of the Sower who sows

The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.

“Now it will come about that
    In the last days
    The mountain of the house of the LORD
    Will be established as the chief of the mountains,
    And will be raised above the hills;
    And all the nations will stream to it.

“And many peoples will come and say,
    ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
    To the house of the God of Jacob;
    That He may teach us concerning His ways
    And that we may walk in His paths.’
    For the law will go forth from Zion
    And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

“And He will judge between the nations,
    And will render decisions for many peoples;
    And they will hammer their swords into plowshares
        and their spears into pruning hooks.
    Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
    And never again will they learn war” (Isaiah 2:1-4).

Worship is a political matter.  One reason why worship, church-life, and the Christian faith are not supposed to be nationalized, molded by any culture, or formed to fit any nation’s lifestyle or form of government is that it should be a reflection of a kingdom that is not of this world—the kingdom that has arrived and has been inaugurated in Jesus Christ.  As a Christian, you should be accepted and made to feel at home in a worship service here in American as well as one in China, Iraq, Israel, Chile, Cuba, the Philippines… I can’t help but read passages like Isaiah 2 and see that Christian worship of the triune God is an answer to the conflicts that plague our international day-to-day life.  I wonder if anyone is actually praying that extreme Islamic terrorists find Christ?  I know it sounds simplistic.  And, conversion to Christ should not negate any civil punishment for killing innocent human beings, but there was Paul (who was first Saul)…

When they had driven him [Stephen] out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul (Acts 7:58)

Saul was in hearty agreement with putting him to death. And on that day a great persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles (Acts 8:1)

Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest (Acts 9:1).

Worship is a political experience, at least according to passages like Isaiah 2 where we find all the nations streaming to the mountain of the Lord in order to hear from God concerning His laws.  Have you ever thought about it—worship as a solution, an act of counter-terrorism, and an answer to international strife?  When nations gather together for worship, there is neither time nor cause to “learn war” anymore.  What strikes me about the Isaiah 2 passage cited above is the contrast between verses 1-4 and 6-8.  Why did Isaiah give this message?  Why did God allow a glance into His future when nations gather to worship the Lord Most High?  It was to contrast how His people had turned from God’s ultimate goal of gathering the nations under His rule and authority and exchanged that mission for becoming like the nations they are at war with in their own day.  As the nations were to come to the Lord and “walk” in His paths (which they would learn in worship), God’s people were then re-called to “walk in the light of the LORD” (v 6).  Read on.

“Come, house of Jacob, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.

  “For You have abandoned Your people, the house of Jacob,
    Because they are filled with influences from the east,
    And they are soothsayers like the Philistines,
    And they strike bargains with the children of foreigners.

  “Their land has also been filled with silver and gold
    And there is no end to their treasures;
    Their land has also been filled with horses
    And there is no end to their chariots.

  “Their land has also been filled with idols;
    They worship the work of their hands,
    That which their fingers have made.”

Here is another reason why we shouldn’t confuse, on any given Sunday, our gathering as the church with the gathering of Americans going to church.  Our worship should SHOUT “our God reigns” and be an invitation for every nation under heaven to “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD...that He may teach us concerning His ways and that we may walk in His paths.” We make our worship so small when we come just to affirm our American-ness and shrink our worship when we gather to just find personal fulfillment or affirmation.

“God uses contemporary preaching to bring his salvation to people today, to build his church, to bring in his kingdom. In short, contemporary biblical preaching is nothing less than a redemptive event.” ~ S. Greidanus

In October of 2004 I posted a Rough Cut exegetical essay on Wordsn’Tone entitled, “The Gospel-Driven Church.” This Rough Cut presents a brief exegesis of the much abused and misused Colossians 3:15 text, “Let the word of Christ richly dwell with you.” Although the essay itself was not intended to critique Rick Warren’s material, the title obviously was self-explanatory as a commentary and pun on the Purpose-Driven books that he has published.  I thought I had been clever--never really a good thing for an exegete--but nonetheless, I was attempting to make a point from the results of my exegesis of the Colossians text and to show my contempt [and I mean contempt] for Warren’s abuse and misuse, and as well, his constant misappropriated proof-texting and utilitarian use of paraphrase versions of the Bible.  (And, not only him, but this way-too-wide-and-common-approach to the Bible among many popular writers and preachers.) Nonetheless, I didn’t invent the term, Gospel-Driven Church.  I first found it while reading through an evangelicaloutpost.com blog about Warren’s books.  The blogger, Arthor Sido had asked, “Whatever happened to the gospel-driven church?” I saw this as I was putting the finial touches on my Rough Cut essay, and thought,

“Now, that’s exactly what Paul is driving at—the gospel-driven church, with all its implications, counter-cultural living, Christ-centered, cross-centered, self-less lifestyles.”

Here is the conclusion of my Rough Cut on Colossians 3:16.

Allow me to offer a new spin that conveys the original meaning of “Let the word of Christ richly dwell in you.” Hear verses 16 and 17 together:

Be a gospel-driven church, express this existence through wise living, that is doing God’s will (cf. Col 1:9); let your teaching and admonishing of one another, especially during your gathered worship, inform you of this gospel-driven life.  Whatever you, as Christ’s people in town, do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, that is, let the gospel define who you are, giving thanks through Him to God the Father.

Paul begins chapter 3 by reminding us that, as a church, our mind—corporately—ought to be on things above, that is our existence and meaning comes from the authority of the risen Christ.  At the end of the paragraph, Paul admonishes the Church—our Church, your Church—to be a gospel-driven church.

For the whole essay...

Then, after posting it for a while on my website, I was curious to see if anyone had lifted or quoted my any of my Rough Cut essays.  So, I googled the title.  (As William Martin calls it, ego-goggling.) Didn’t see much regarding my essays, but I did find others who were utilizing the same phrase—The Gospel-Driven Church—which mostly was used to make a comment on either the Market-Driven Church approaches to church growth or Warren’s Purpose-Driven books.  Among the hits I discovered that there was actually a book with the title, The Gospel-Driven Church , written by Ian Stackhouse.

While I was at the November 2006 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, I picked the book up.  I read it right away.  Incredible.  Although written within the context of the church growth movement in England, it is clearly a commentary on the weakness of church growth movements, so-called, in general.  Underlying Stackhouse’s critique is his concern that the church has trusted in other purposes and power, including technique, to grow—increase—churches other than the Gospel itself as the source of power.  I am in agreement that we are letting things other than the gospel itself define our churches, and things other than the gospel to give a church its power to bring about change, conversions, and growth.  Stackhouse writes:

“Hence, the most pressing challenge facing the evangelical-charismatic church [or any evangelical church, which is implied here] is a confessional one: to have faith that the gospel is able to do its own work, create its own structures and fashion its own distinct community” (p 76).

We are just not confident enough in the Gospel.  As a result we trust everything but.  We think technique is more important than faith interpretation of the text and we eschew reenacting the Gospel.  Again, Stackhouse comments, “Being effective in ministry…has become more important than being able to act as interpreters of the historic faith” (p 79).

Stackhouse is writing what has been on my mind for many, many years.  I wish every pastor would read the main thrust of Stackhouse’s argument:

“The main thrust of out argument is to suggest that there are other criteria for measuring success apart from numbers, alluring though the numbers game may be.  But if there is to be growth—and there is no virtue in smallness per se—let us be sure that it takes its cue from the power inherent in the gospel itself, and the various means by which the gospel enacts its message” (79).

When church growth is primary, and its partner in crime, the increase of the church budget as a close secondary goal, the point of all preaching, then, is to make relevant, meaningful application, recruit, and move the individual to guilt (i.e., “your never fully surrendered”), and thus furthering our distance from faithful exegetical exposition and interpretation of the text of Scripture.  The “need” isn’t to hear from the text, but to use the text to promote the church’s growth and commitment to church activities.  This is one reason I put out my Rough Cuts, that is to show how exegesis let’s the text speak, and as one small step in recovering our commitment to the text of Scripture and to reaffirm that we believe God’s Word and His Gospel is powerful enough to bring about His ends to expand His Church and to increase His Kingdom.

Read my Rough Cut exegetical essays on Colossians 3:16, “The Gospel-Driven Church” and other Rough Cuts here...

If you want relevancy, watch Oprah, your leading source of information on love and life (at least according to her website).  Can anyone show me where in the Bible it says make me relevant to each and every person until Jesus returns.  I know I am going to get in trouble here.  And, for sure, by some, be dismissed.  And worse, probably be deemed as irrelevant, and by some absolutely wrong.  But I don’t care.  There is no doubt our neurosis with our own sense of meaninglessness and our obsession to make the Christian faith relevant to non-believers has caused much famine of the word of the Lord in the church.  As Walter Kaiser observed in his Toward an Exegetical Theology :

“It is no secret that Christ’s church is not at all in good health in many places of the world. She has been languishing because she has been fed, as the current line has it, “junk food.”…As a result, theological and biblical malnutrition has affected [us]…[A] worldwide spiritual famine resulting from the absence of any genuine [diet] of the Word of God continues to run wild and almost unabated in most quarters of the church.”

Too often and typically, a sermon or teaching is judged by its use of illustrations and Hallmark Card “relevant” platitudes, rather than whether the result, that is the message, is a faithful exposition and careful exegesis of the text.  In fact, I rarely hear expository messages—I mean real ones, not topical and contextual renderings of pastoral ideas.  In fact I bet you a year’s salary that most congregants know more about their pastor the preacher and more about how he or she feels about the bible than they do about the Christian faith as proclaimed by the New Testament writers.  We hear more on how the preacher relates to the world, about his (or her) stories of life, and how the preacher feels about the church, the world, and Christianity, than what the texts of Scripture say.  And stringing verses with common words and themes together as a conclusion or a start to what the preacher is sharing doesn’t count.  That’s not preaching, neither is it exposition of Scripture.  We rob our congregations of the knowledge of God’s word.  Certainly make the Word relevant.  But it must be the Word that is being made relevant.  As preachers and communicators of the Word, it’s not about us.  It is not our story that we so desperately want to share.  It is His story.  His Word.  His text.  If you want relevancy, stick to the popular couch shows like Oprah.  But know this is not want the soul actually needs.  Nor, does it actually have the power to redeem and cause the church to preserve.

Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching by Walter C. Kaiser.  Baker Book House (July 1998)

If you only buy or read one book on how to study the Bible or how to prepare sermons or how to do the work of exegeting a text, this is it.  This is the one!  No other book helped me to become better at studying the Bible and preaching.  Should be required reading for all pastors, missionaries, and anyone who stands before others and says, “This is what the Bible says” and “This is what God says.” If I had a million dollars, I’d buy a copy for every pastor in American.  Don’t hesitate—get it, read it, learn it, and do it!

Dr. Greg Beale, my advisor and New Testament professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (now at Wheaton Seminary), gave me this advice just before my graduation in 1986, now twenty-one years ago:

“You have the general principles of hermeneutics pretty much understood, you know the rules of interpretation, now spend your time reading exegetical studies.  Read anything that forces you into the text.”

He might have forgotten he had given me that small, but important piece of wisdom, but I didn’t.  I have taken seriously Dr. Beale’s words now for twenty-one years--I plan on continuing for the next 21 years.

His words reminded me of the Karl Barth quote,

“We have been studying cheerfully and seriously.  As far as I was concerned it could have continued in that way, and I had already resigned myself to having my grave here by the Rhine!...And now the end has come.  So listen to my piece of advice: exegesis, exegesis, and yet more exegesis!  Keep to the Word, to the scripture that has been given to us.”

These words, taken from Gordon Fee’s book on New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, were Barth’s formal farewell to his students in Bonn, just before his expulsion from Germany in 1935.  It’s the text that matters.  Oh, of course, we should study backgrounds and ancient history, even sociology—all these help us understand Scripture and ourselves.  But the one thing I have observed in 29 years of being a Christian is that we spend a whole lot more time reading into the text foreign, personal, and so-called contemporary meanings than we do simply exegeting and lifting out of the text what the author intended in the first place.  When I was a Bible College professor, I told my students that I prayed God would give them the gift of observation.  (My Rough Cuts are dedicated to that prayer and purpose.) We should be driven back to the text—and to return again and again to hear it, in context.  It is in and through the text of Scripture that God’s voice can be heard.  To this end, I pray that God will give you the gift of observation.  What does the text say?  That is the preacher’s task.

“We have been studying cheerfully and seriously.  As far as I was concerned it could have continued in that way, and I had already resigned myself to having my grave here by the Rhine!...And now the end has come.  So listen to my piece of advice: exegesis, exegesis, and yet more exegesis!  Keep to the Word, to the scripture that has been given to us.” ~Karl Barth

“…first, remember, remember, remember the signs. Say them to yourself when you wake in the morning and when you lie down at night, and when you wake in the middle of the night. And whatever strange things may happen to you, let nothing turn your mind from following the signs. And secondly, I give you a warning. Here on the mountain I have spoken to you clearly: I will not often do so down in Narnia. Here on the mountain, the air is clear and your mind is clear; as you drop down into Narnia, the air will thicken. Take great care that it does not confuse your mind. And the signs which you have learned here will not look at all as you expect them to look, when you meet them there. That is why it is so important to know them by heart and pay no attention to appearances. Remember the signs and believe the signs. Nothing else matters.” ~Aslan, in The Silver Chair by C.S. Lewis

God’s Neighborhood: A Hopeful Journey in Racial Reconciliation and Community Renewal by Scott Roley with James Isaac Elliot, forward by Michael Card, InterVarsity Press (June 2004).

God’s Neighborhood is chiefly a journey.  Scott Roley, once a rising contemporary Christian music artist and song writer, reaches back to his childhood, moves us through his growing up years and on into his adult years, asking us to join him on a life journey, a spiritual journey.  He pauses along the way, asking the questions, “What providence placed me here?  What does God want me to learn?” Like he asked while living in Washington DC, “What providence placed me in a neighborhood close enough to Washington to view the Capital dome?  What should I be learning, seeing, thinking?” But, Roley doesn’t stop asking the question in Washington DC—he asks these questions at every turn, every venture throughout his life.  Eventually, Christian music ministry gave way to a different kind of ministry.  Roley pens it best, “God’s Neighborhood is about understanding and participating in Christian community.  It describes a response to the biblical mandate of care for the poor.” In reading God’s Neighborhood, we are asked to join the author as he leaves his life of privilege, then seeks church ministry, and eventually moves into a disadvantaged neighborhood.  There, we learn with him and his friends (among whom is another famous Christian artist, Michael Card) what “loving your neighbor” actually means.  What it means with feet and hands, namely community development and racial reconciliation.  “We must look into the eyes of poverty,” Roley exhorts, “and examine the heart, soul, and psyche of it.  People aren’t just in need of drug rehab, roof over their heads or decent food to eat.  They also require the dignity of true and relevant education, affordable health care, and living wage opportunities.” And yes, this from an Evangelical Christian.  Roley writes, “The journey of our hearts into racial reconciliation and community renewal from Hard Bargain to Mount Hope is a moment-to-moment decision to place faith and trust in Christ.  It is why we strive for the renewal of our streets, rehabilitation for our crumbling homes and lives, the revival of real relationships among the least and the lost, and redemption for all through our Savior Jesus.” Roley invites us to share the same journey, a journey that exemplifies Christian hope in caring for the disinherited and renewing our communities, one neighborhood at a time.  This book, although very easy to read and fast paced, is dangerous—a book, not for Christians who are faint-hearted, or comfortable in their complacency.

There is money is talking about poverty.  Of course, the money isn’t for the poor, but for those who are skilled in the art of rhetorical talk on poverty, those who love the mass appeal of looking righteous, kind, and concerned, but in reality are not.  Sure, John Edwards, democrat candidate for US President, is within his rights to demand payment for speeches on any topic that people are willing to give him an ear.  (Funny thing, this market demand economy is used by even its most ardent critics.) But he is not righteous, however, in doing so.  After reading that democratic candidate John Edwards was paid $55,000 for his presentation on poverty at the University of California at Davis, it reminded me of what Paul Johnson referred to in his, Intellectuals:

“Almost all intellectuals profess to love humanity and to be working for its improvement and happiness. But it is the idea of humanity they love, rather than the actual individuals who compose it. They love humanity in general rather than men and women in particular. Loving humanity as an idea, they can then produce solutions as ideas. Therein lies the danger, for when people conflict with the solution as idea, they are first ignored or dismissed as unrepresentative; and then, when they continue to obstruct the idea, they are treated with growing hostility and categorized as enemies of humanity in general.”

Seems to me, there needs to be a correspondence of lifestyle to the rhetoric of one’s so-called convictions—at least at a minimum.  Or else, there is a hint, if not outright, hypocrisy.  “I worked for a Hedge Fund, making tons of money and making the rich richer all because I wanted to learn about poverty” is hypocrisy and blatantly so.  Edwards is the candidate of the “two Americas,” seeking to be the one who would cure the ills of poverty, injustice, and economic inequity.  He claims that “poverty is the great moral issue facing America today.” I agree it is indeed a moral issue.  But loving man is not the same thing as love men.  Edwards, et. al. are good at loving mankind—in this case, loving the poor—but he has yet to demonstrate his love for actual men (for actually poor people).

I do not care that Edwards made 55 grand for a speaking engagement, nor that he paid 450 bucks for a hair cut—fully his right as one of those living in the wealthier American nation.  But to call on how others should spend their wealth and how the government should take your money and spend it is, well, simply rhetorical, self-righteous, and at worse, hypocritical.  Edwards no more understands the other America than my cat does.  If he really wanted to come to grips with poverty and those who live in and through it, he could have, after losing the 2004 election, started a non-profit social service agency, become a Community Action Agency director (or frontline worker!), or volunteered as a worker at any human service agency in his other America.

As Arthur Brooks, author of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, says, “When it comes to charity, America is two nations—one charitable, and the other uncharitable.” Brooks, through analysis and in-depth research, has shown us that there is “proof,” and perhaps surprisingly so, that conservatives and those who are religious are more compassionate and more generous than liberals and the non-religious.  Edwards is already a wealthy individual and has benefited much from the American system of capitalism and limited government he criticizes.  He could have done anything—anything he wanted to do.  Yet he chose a job that makes the most weathiest more wealthy.

I am sympathetic to his rhetoric because I do think poverty is a moral issue and should be a national interest to address and solve (one the Republicans should be chief advocates for, by the way).  But he should (and should have) matched his rhetoric with action, not just demand that others are to act on his rhetoric.

“Almost all intellectuals profess to love humanity and to be working for its improvement and happiness. But it is the idea of humanity they love, rather than the actual individuals who compose it. They love humanity in general rather than men and women in particular. Loving humanity as an idea, they can then produce solutions as ideas. Therein lies the danger, for when people conflict with the solution as idea, they are first ignored or dismissed as unrepresentative; and then, when they continue to obstruct the idea, they are treated with growing hostility and categorized as enemies of humanity in general.” ~Paul Johnson, Intellectuals