Words'nTone

“Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: break away now from your sins by doing righteousness and from your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, in case there may be a prolonging of your prosperity” (Daniel 4:27).

Daniel, the young court-advisor for the king of Babylon, was asked to interpret a dream that the king had envisioned during the night.  The narrator tells us the king was “fearful” and that the dreams “alarmed” him, which leads us to believe that the king sensed this was not just a dream, but a nightmare.  After hearing of the dream, Daniel himself was “appalled,” which further suggests to the reader that this was not going to end well for the king.  My intention here is to point out what Daniel suggested to the king by way of possible postponement of the judgment that the king was to experience.  Bottom-line, the king’s right and privilege to rule the Babylonian empire would be taken away.  Nonetheless, with no explanation—the reader is to just understand ,Daniel tells the king that he needs to “break away from [his] sins by doing righteousness” (which suggests his governing was improper, unethical, and perhaps his personal life was corrupt), and then we have an interesting further bit of advise from the young prophet.  The king was to “break away” from his “iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.” This is interesting.  Daniel applies torah-law to the king’s requirements of repentance.

In days previous, another prophet, Isaiah, obviously addressing those who were governing, sings judgment that their policies and actions were harmful to those who were poor.  He oracles:

     Woe to those who enact evil statutes
       And to those who constantly record unjust decisions,
     So as to deprive the needy of justice
       And rob the poor of My people of their rights,
       So that widows may be their spoil
       And that they may plunder the orphans.
     Now what will you do in the day of punishment,
       And in the devastation which will come from afar?
       To whom will you flee for help?
       And where will you leave your wealth? (Isa 10:1-3).

Daniel knew exactly how a king is to repent.  “Love the Lord thy God” and “love thy neighbor” are indeed the sum of the law and the prophets as Jesus pointed out.  And this was as true for the kings and civic rulers as it was for the “religious” leaders and the individual.  Daniel’s words of repentance seems to indicate that rulers were to obey torah-law, which includes “showing mercy to the poor.”

My Rough Cuts exegetical essays have made it around the globe.  Within a week of posting my first Rough Cut, hits on “Send to a Friend” [old website] rose to the top spot in most used pages.  I am, of course, glad I have produced something useful and that people will want to read.  A good friend said, “Rough Cuts will be your signature—and maybe another book someday.” Maybe.

I use a phrase to describe my “method of study,” contextual-observation.  I am not sure, but I probably didn’t invent the concept.  Nonetheless, I believe most errors in interpretation, from among our general Christian population, are related to lifting the text out of the original context and giving it a whole new meaning, not intended by the author (nor the Holy Spirit).  I am not against study and research—I was a Greek professor at one time.  Of course, reading good exegetical commentaries is a fine discipline as one seeks to understand a text of Scripture.  But, it’s the simple, paying attention to the original context and the author’s own flow of thought (.i.e., the literacy context) we seem to have trouble with.  Reading and re-reading the context, the whole book (e.g., Philippians, I & II Kings, Genesis, James, etc.) is, in my opinion, the best way to pick up the context and flow of thought—simply reading it over and over and over.  Not too hard.  As you become familiar with the whole content of the book, your understanding of one particular text—whether it is a verse or a paragraph—will be connected to the whole of the book.  I don’t believe God is looking for inspired misunderstanding of the text of Scripture from our pulpits and in our sunday schools and bible studies; he is desirous of a faithful rendering of His Scriptures.  When I taught methods of Bible study or exegesis or even Greek exegesis, I had a six-step plan for someone looking to develop a sermon or a bible study:

1. Read the whole book (Romans, Isaiah, I Peter).  Just read it once, all the way through in as few sittings as possible.  The smaller books can be read in one sitting—Romans, for example, takes about an hour.



2. Read the whole book again, noting this time, possible sections.  Write them down.  (Most English translations will already have paragraph divisions.  This can be helpful as you do this step.)



3. Read the whole book again, this time making an extended outline of the book.  In your outline headings, try only to use the words from the text rather than your own interpretation.



4. Read the whole book again, and give a short summary of each section.  But one rule here: Make sure you use only words that are found in the text in your summary.  Re-read your summary and make sure you haven’t (at this point) interpreted by putting your own concepts into the summary.



5. Read the whole book again.  This time, on a separate piece of paper, write down the themes, concepts, ideas, and words used over and over again throughout the book.



6. Read the whole book again and make a syntactical display of the flow of thought.  (I leave you with this one, unexplained…tune in later to Rough Cuts and you will see examples of this or go to my Top Ten page and order Walter Kaiser’s Toward an Exegetical Theology for an explanation.)

As you can see, you haven’t even picked up a commentary yet.  But you will have read the whole book six times before you even begin to interpret or even exegete the text you want to preach or study.  Remember, for most of the Church’s history and even today, it is a luxury to have all the Bible study tools and helps available to us.  (If you have to choose between reading my site and reading a whole Bible book--read the Bible book!) Even though there are many good commentaries that are helpful, when we turn to them first, we trade away simply paying attention to the text and the author’s own flow of thought.  This is where you should start.

“When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.  When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow.  When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not go over it again; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow.  You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing” (Deut 24:19-22).

When I hear that it’s not the government’s responsibility (and I actually agree in that it is only partially its responsiblity) and when I hear individuals are responsible (i.e., personal charity—and again, I agree, but it is only partially a persons responsiblity), I get a little nervous—biblically speaking.  For my friends who argue that the poor should receive justice and not handouts…I am sure they don’t mean that of themselves regarding their relationship with God.  Good thing I didn’t receive justice and I was so thankful for the hand out.  Again, I pun, but I do not jest. One either lives by grace or the law…I think living by grace means acting in grace and not law toward others, does it not?  I am not sure what is meant by my well-intentioned Christian family when some say the poor should get justice from the government.  Fair and equitable treatment, I suppose.  But how does that help their poverty, or the conditions of poverty?  Or, maybe it’s not supposed to?  Two things strike me from the text above: 1) it’s a law and a means of taxation regulated by the government; and, 2) the harvest belongs to the individual owner and the law seems to be a way to help the most marginalized among the community to have the basic needs met.  So, what is it?  The poor are just to pull up their boots and get to work and stop being poor?  I have found that those who believe the government is to do nothing to help the poor, are also those who do not believe in structural sin and that poverty is more or less self-imposed.  Albeit, I agree, that much of the government’s interaction with the poor have continued structures that are not favorable in dealing with poverty.  But that is no reason to disregard the government’s responsibility.  Now, in defending the government’s role, I by no means believe government is an adequate solution to poverty.  Heaven’s no.  That is why I mixed in other Margins the Federal government’s role and church budgets within my solutions.  I am seeking how it is we are to apply texts like the one quoted above from Deuteronomy.  To say it’s Old Testament Law that is no longer in effect seems evasive at the least, and perhaps sinful at the most.  If one wants to place the burden solely on the church—let’s then do the work of ministering to the poor—but I’d also say that doesn’t deal with the responsibility that governing structures seem to have toward the poor, which are indeed in the biblical text.  I agree the government wastes too much money on things that don’t bring solutions to poverty.  But, I guess to be fair, we should see what the church is wasting their money on as well in light of the poor among us.  There has been a shift throughout the last two-hundred years in how the poor are supported--from inividual charity shifting to government social seervice.  But now, over the last two decades, here in America, there has been a balancing, a more reasonable structure and system process taking place where the shift is back toward non-governmental entities, many faith-based.  More of a partnership is happening.  I think the biblical text is clear that the government can levie taxes (income) to support how inividuals and entities offer social services to the poor.  My thoughts are in how the church is to play its part.  So how does the church obey Duet 24?

---

For further thoughts on Deuteronomy 24 or social action read the thread that begins the series, Deuteronomy 24: A foundation for government responsiblity toward social action

“Among the advanced races, the decline and ultimately the collapse of the religious impulse would leave a huge vacuum.  The history of modern times is in great part the history of how that vacuum had been filled.” ~ Paul Johnson, Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties

The Gravedigger File: Papers on the Subversion of the Modern Church by Os Guinness.  Intervarsity Press (July 1983).

I read this book about once a year—have done so for the last twenty or so.  Guinness here put me on guard as to how much my faith is modified by my culture rather than the other way around.  Written somewhat like CS Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters, Guinness gives us subversive letters and communiqués from the enemy Directorate to an underling charged with keeping a person away from Christ, the Church, and the truth.  It is a great conspiracy story—and way too true to real life (the life of the church).  Fairly easy reading and only pennies a copy from Amazon used books.

One would think that Jesus was actually serious when He said, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Are we to think that we are praying for what is real in heaven where God reigns is to be realized on earth now?  “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done” . . . where?  “. . .on earth as it is in heaven.” Jesus’ prayer to His heavenly Father was a summary of His eschatology.  He expected His followers to be disciples of realized eschatology; obedience to Christ is to mean that discipleship is intentionally doing on earth what is real in heaven.  The portrait of the future, that is, the eschatological reality placed before the believer in the text of scripture, demands a discipleship that seeks to bring that future into the imagination and obedience of the followers of Christ—on earth, in their neighborhoods, at work, in the lives of their friends and family and neighbors.  Over the course of this year, along with grant writing and other personal writing projects, I want to explore the relationship between eschatology and its impact on Christian obedience as it relates to justice and activities that serve, assist, and provide for the economically vulnerable and marginalized populations that surround the church.  I will demonstrate that social action is not just a form of evangelism, or simply “pre-evangelism,” but is actually an evangelistic act, namely an announcement that the kingdom of God has come.  (Any margin notes, or essays, or brief writing on this subject will be placed in the Wasted Evangelism catagory.)

A few years back—well okay, more than a few—we used to like singing a Scott Wesley Brown song called, “Please Don’t Send Me to Africa.” After confessing we were the Lord’s “willing servant” and calling on God to remember our long, faithful service, we sang for one request:

    Please don’t send me to Africa
    I don’t think I’ve got what it takes
    I’m just a man, I’m not a tarzan
    Don’t like lions, or rivers, or snakes
    I’ll serve you here in suburbia
    In my comfortable middle class life
    But please don’t send me out in the bush
    Where the natives are restless at night

Of course the song was to spoof on those unwilling to go to the far ends of the earth as a missionaries—places that would make us uncomfortable, places dirty, with messy and unfamiliar people and habits and custumns.  Well after being in the church community for now thirty (that’s 30!) years, I think we’ve successfully turned Brown’s song on its head.  Now we sing of our long service and willingness to go to the far reaches of the earth, to bring back pictures and tearful stories of noble missionary adventures, self-sacrificing—they’re even chic, trendy, and we get a lot of high fives and kudos for our efforts.  All the while, we have one request that God would grant us:

    Please don’t send me to Bridgeport
    I don’t think I’ve got what it takes
    I’m just a comfortable suburbanite;
       I’m not a social action advocate
    Don’t like drug users, streetwalkers, and hoods on corners
    I’ll gladly serve you in Africa
    Where I’ll be seen as sacrificial and important
    Please don’t send me out on the street
    Where the poor and the homeless are restless at night

Of course I pun, but I do not jest.  Of course I hope many are called—long term—to the farther reaches of the earth in order to extend the kingdom of God.  My life verse is Acts 13:47:

“For so the Lord has commanded us, ‘I HAVE PLACE YOU AS A LIGHT FOR THE GENTILES THAT YOU MAY BRING SALVATION TO THE END OF THE EARTH.’”

So don’t get me wrong regarding missions.  What bothers me is that we tend, today, to place such emphasis on “over there” and I don’t doubt the good intentions of those who take their vacations in far overseas countries on behalf of Christ.  But, why aren’t the poor, the homeless, the burdened, the marginalized right next store seen as a mission field to give of one’s time?  Bridgeport is also “the end of the earth” in God’s economy and redemptive plan.  (For those who read this and don’t realize it, Bridgeport is one of America’s poorest cities and its part of the richest county in America.) Where are the adventurous that are willing to set aside suburban comfort to reach out in the messy places of urban mission fields right next store (put in your own nearby urban center)?

At our employment center (we call it NorwalkWorks), July, every year, starts a new cycle of employment support, services, and programs for our area’s vulnerable populations.  I can write the grants (we did well this year), design the programs, but it is the staff who execute the contracts, and it is my Adult Services Planner, Jackie, who makes it all work.  I have had a “build it and they will come” Field of Dreams approach over the past number of years: You know, take what I have, build a framework, a structure, and a little capacity, and hopefully donors and funders and leaders will see it—and then commit funds to further build the program. We have good programs and workforce development contracts (employment services and placement for area homeless and other low-income populations; occupational skills for families on public assistance; employment readiness and occupational skills for out-of-school teens; people can prepare for their GED; etc.).  In general, we also we have the capacity to support some individualized training and support for helping residents with job search needs.

Why am I telling you all this?  Because, this is what I think about all the time.  How to help people move beyond their economic and social barriers, help them move beyond dependence on our public resources and toward independence and self-sufficiency?  And then there is my fellow church community where I often hear that the government shouldn’t be doing this, it’s a waste of our tax-money, it’s ruining our country, all these entitlements.  Well do the work then.  Get people jobs.  We’re supposed to be all about grace, unearned favor with God.  Why doesn’t this so often translate into our view on people as actually living beings, especially the poor who have multiply barriers to employment.  I live in a tension—I do believe that it is within our national (and community) interests for the government to provide the means to help low-income people move into the workforce—it is a good investment, and there is a cost benefit.  On the other hand I believe that social action should be a means of evangelism and a kingdom task of the church.  In the church, I see all the resources, the capacity, the talents, and I wonder why we aren’t harnessing them on-behalf of the most vulnerable among us.  We live in one of the richest counties in the US (Fairfield County, CT), with one of the poorest cities right next door (Bridgeport).  I leave with two questions: First, one from a wealthy man who is seeking to justify himself, “Who is my neighbor?” And, the second, from Jesus at the end of the parable of the Good Samaritan, “Which one was a neighbor to the one who fell into the hands of the robbers?” Problem is, the answer to both is, “Whoever had mercy on him.” I love doing what I do.  But, my heart is burdened to have the church share in this endeavor and that I could do what I do through the Christian community (i.e., a church).  To this end, I am praying, someday I will.  In the meanwhile I work at this in so-called secular employment; I encourage the small church plant I am involved with to offer this type of evangelism (which the pastor and the church is most open to—thankfully); I post crazy thoughts like this for others to read; and I work on writing about the Christian faith and social action.  (I have begun putting down some thoughts and doing a little research for a paper on social action, the mission of the church, evangelism, and the kingdom of God.)

“In this line of work, nothing is useless.  You stand in places like this and try to hear the ghosts.  Sometimes they tell you about their friends.  And sometimes their friends lead you to what you’re looking for.” ~Peter Fallon, rare book collector and treasure sleuth, the main character in William Martin’s The Lost Constitution

“Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ.” ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Called and Committed: World Changing Discipleship by David Watson.  Shaw (March 7, 2000).

Discipleship is not just about memorizing verses, praying with a prayer partner, or participating in every church event scheduled by your church leadership.  Watson pointed me toward true life-affecting discipleship—both rare and shunned by modern Christians.  No other book headed me into the dangerous lifestyle of discipleship as Called and Committed .  You can get this book used for pennies, but it is priceless.  Watson’s book is an easy read, practical, and a good review of Jesus’ call to follow Him, pick up one’s cross and die.

Do any of these verses play a part in our spirituality? 

“He who gives to the poor will never want, but he who shuts his eyes will have many curses” (Proverbs 28:27).

“The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor, the wicked does not understand such concern” (Proverbs 29:7).

“If a king judges the poor with truth, his throne will be established forever” (Proverbs 29:14).

“He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors Him” (Proverbs 14:31).

Some times I wonder if we are all reading the same Bible.  Although I am a conservative and a republican to boot, I have been disappointed in the President’s budgets throughout his tenure; primarily because there is a disconnect between his rhetoric about the poor, poverty, and compassion and his budgets.  People make it about Red vs. Blue, liberal vs. conservative.  Christians make it about social gospel vs. preaching the word.  But, as Christians, we are held to a higher standard—aren’t we?  As Christians, I find that the Bible—God’s inspired word—tells me that we need to stand up for the poor as the Community of God and, as well, hold “rulers” accountable for the same.  As Christians we are Biblical when our own budgets reflect a concern for the vulnerable populations that surround us (which is a living prophetic word) and when we hold our “rulers” accountable to make good on their promises to address poverty.  I think we can’t do that because our own church budgets are off the prophetic mark, too.

“The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes (Proverbs 21:1).

“Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:13).

“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.” (John 15:7).

“You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you” (John 15:16).

I joined a Christian Yahoo discussion group not too long ago.  Over the past week a long and rather heated thread on God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge, Calvinism and man’s free will has ensued as the chief topic.  I only joined in the discussion because someone said that the Calvinist’s God is an insecure God and is afraid that His will would not be accomplished.  I thought this was a curious argument or premise.  I entered the fray only at a minimum to address the fallacy in that logic.  But, to no avail.  I am not equipped to define Calvinism (I suspect that long standing theological framework will outlast us and this Yahoo Group discussion).  It was thrown out that if God predestines at all why does He have us pray?  I do not have a sift answer, nor a new theological twist to explain God’s sovereignty and man’s (apparent) free will.  I am not that cleaver, nor theological astute.  But one cannot escape that we have verses in the Scripture, especially on prayer, that demands that we place confidence in an all-powerful, self-willed, sovereign God who is not subject to the will of men.  Like the verse from Proverbs that gives me confidence that even our rulers are in God’s hands to turn whichever He chooses, prayer promises me a God who is capable of delivering answers and can make good on promises.  I found it an ironic thing that John 15:16 linked being chosen by God, appointed by God, and the promise of “whatever you ask.” I understand Christian’s reluctance in accepting the Calvinistic theological framework, but attacking Calvinism or those who find Scripture supports a God who is all-knowing and all-sovereign with a straw-god (one who is insecure and afraid) seemed to me a bit much.  From Genesis to Revelation, I am commanded to pray and have confidence that God is able to answer based on His character.  If one thinks God is limited by human will and cannot or will not bend it, or is limited in His knowledge (foreknowledge), that God is too small and undermines the confidence we are to have in the God of Scripture.

You meet all kinds on airplanes.  Just ask the sociologist from New York who found himself seated next to a young man decked out in multiple earrings, a fascinating hairdo, and ripped jeans.  As they talked, the man perceived that the younger man had also clothed himself in a “modern,” value-free attitude toward life.

As the plane leveled off high above the earth, the sociologist decided to have some fun.  He said to the young man, “I was talking to the pilot before we took off.  He told me some real mind-blowing things.  This is a real swinging airplane.  They really hang loose, you know.  None of this bit about no drinking when flying.  In fact, they smoke pot right up there in the cockpit.  They’re probably having a great party up there right now.”

Of course, by this time, the young man was not enjoying himself as much as his flying companion was.  For someone who chose to live without values, he seemed strangely upset at the thought that the airline would allow its pilots to do the same.

It seems agreeable that the values we hold—our worldview, the lifestyle we choose—should also be acceptable and reasonable when others hold and express the same values.  We should welcome, then, those who express similar lifestyles and applaud those who express our values.  However, we encounter times it would be better if they did not.  We wake up to the reality that it can be displeasingly unacceptable and disturbingly unreasonable to see others act on our values and worldview—especially when it adversely affects our own well-being.

With the news every night and papers every morning, we wonder where in heaven’s name did all these cruel and horrible actions of people come from?  The bombing of the innocent.  Teenagers gunning down classmates.  Day-traders turned gunman.  The list continues to grow.

Steve Turner, an English journalist and poet, has poignantly written a worthwhile commentary on this:

       If chance be
              The Father of all flesh,
              Disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
       And when you hear
              State of Emergency!
              Sniper Kills Ten!
              Troops on Rampage!
              Whites go Looting!
              Bomb Blasts School!
       It is but the sound of man
              Worshipping his maker.

We might enjoy expressing our values—the pleasures they deliver; the seeming freedom they bring.  However, when those who opposed Christianity (and religion for that matter) even hint at value-denying or morality-mocking, we must all pay a price.  We must accept how “others” express that same worldview—and sometimes personally reap the consequences of their actions.

Someone once quipped, “When God is dead, everything is possible.” And, the problem is, we do meet all kinds.  At this point, belief in God and His revealed Word seems quite reasonable.  There is great comfort in Jesus’ words in John 8: “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.  Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

© Chip M. Anderson (March 2004)
    Words’nTone, Habits of the Mind

In yesterday’s Margin, I said that the more our preaching is a mimic of the cultural values and entertainment habits that are part of our societal and cultural milieu, we’ll continue to be hard of hearing, i.e., dull of hearing.  And that’s the problem with idolatry.  Okay, so I expanded my idea from yesterday a little—but that’s why I wanted to do another post on the subject today.  I have heard it all regarding preaching: “You need more illustrations and less academic,” “can’t be too intellectual,” “they won’t understand it,” “unless its entertaining, they won’t connect with it, nor will it keep their interests,” etc.  Some of this might actually be true, and I hardly advocate dry and boring exposition being dribbled out from the pulpit.  But that’s not the point.  Or, at least’s not my point.

Over and again, Jesus chides his disciples that they, too, are dull of hearing.  And there is the universal call of Jesus “to those who have ears to hear.” This phrase is taken from passages warning against idolatry and the hope of calling out a remnant of God’s people.  The most famous OT passage regarding hard of hearing (i.e., dull of hearing) is, of course, Isaiah 6:9-10.  We read:

    He said, “Go, and tell this people:
      ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;
      Keep on looking, but do not understand.
      Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
        Their ears dull,
        And their eyes dim,
        Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
        Hear with their ears,
        Understand with their hearts,
        And return and be healed.’”

This is an importance passage, given that each Gospel utilizes it at the place of introducing either Jesus’ ministry, the explanation of the Kingdom, or the call to discipleship.  Luke ends his historical account of the beginning of the church with Paul referencing Isaiah 6.  And, Paul alludes and quotes it in Romans.  I cannot do the passage justice here; but, I can make a few observations that (hopefully) anyone can make reading the text itself.

Ever notice that preachers and pop-Christian writes like to quote Isaiah 6:8 to encourage obedience to missions and/or evangelizing (or witnessing)? 

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

Certainly a nice verse to utilize in calling the church and especially proclaimers of the Gospel to obedience.  But, rarely do they connect the call to go to the content of the proclamation of those sent.  Again, we read in Isaiah 6:9-10:

    He said, “Go, and tell this people:
      ‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;
      Keep on looking, but do not understand.
      Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
        Their ears dull,
        And their eyes dim,
        Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
        Hear with their ears,
        Understand with their hearts,
        And return and be healed.’”

This is a tough message to proclaim.  Maybe thyat’s why we exchange this severe message for a nice-nice, comforting message about the Gospel.  Well, it is the Gospel, for sure, but not the way we typically hear it or preach it.  The call is to send someone to proclaim a message that brings the result of the consequence of idolatry, i.e., dull hearing.  And, it is a message to the visible people of God—to Israel of Isaiah’s day.  This is the same way the text is used in the Gospels and by Luke and Paul.  The message of the Gospel is proclaimed to the visible people of God, whether to Israel as a whole or to Jesus’ own disciples.  The idolatry exposed in Isaiah 1-5 offers some background in that the people of God had so mimicked the culture that turned people away from the Creator-God (which made it an idolatrous culture).  The message would come to re-enforce the consequences of being idolatrous--the people would, like the idols they worshipped and the culture and social habits that had developed around the idolatry, become dull of hearing—incapable of hearing.

Secondly, Isaiah’s response, of course is to heed the call, to say “Send me.” But after hearing the content of the message he was to proclaim, he asked what to us may be a strange question.  He asks in verse 11a, “How long shall I preach this message?” To which the Lord indicated (vv 11b-13):

    … And He answered,
       “Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant,
        Houses are without people
        And the land is utterly desolate,
        The LORD has removed men far away,
        And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.
        Yet there will be a tenth portion in it,
        And it will again be subject to burning,
        Like a terebinth or an oak
        Whose stump remains when it is felled
        The holy seed is its stump.”

The message would be proclaimed until the judgment had fully been executed, captivity had occurred, and the land totally lay in ruins.  Not necessarily the Gospel as we know it.  But it is in this message of judgment that God calls out His hearers, that is His remnant (v 13).  The idea of the tenth portion, the stump, and the holy seed were to indicate that God would bring about His redemption and His remnant would be drawn out through this preaching, through this proclamation.  This is why it is important to be hearers and not dull of hearing when it comes to the Word.  This is why it important to not mimic the culture for the sake of simplicity and relevance in our worship, for such mimicking merely renders the judgment, that is makes us dull of hearing.  The task of the preacher—as well as those who design and lead in worship—ought to be to make us hearers, and not to contribute to our continued dullness of hearing.  If we be idolatrous in our worship in that we utilize the means and methods of our consumeric, market-driven culture as well as relying so heavily on technology and technique, we will be rendered hard of hearing and not be able to hear with our ears, understand with our hearts (i.e., not have a hard-heart), and return to the Lord and be healed.