Words'nTone

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.

Certain cities throughout American’s history have been notable as symbols or focal points that radiate the American spirit, as Neil Postman writes.  Once it was Boston, with the “shot heard around the world,” inviting all Americans, at the time, to take arms—at a time, all Americans were all Bostonians, from Boston to Virginia…today, it seems we have the cities of Hollywood or Las Vegas, as Neil Postman intimated, as our new symbol-cities…

“Today, we must look to the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, as a metaphor of our national character and aspiration, its symbol a thirty-foot-high cardboard picture of a slot machine and a chorus girl.  For Las Vegas is a city entirely devoted to the idea of entertainment, and as such proclaims the spirit of a culture in which all public discourse increasingly takes the form of entertainment.  Our politics, religion, news, athletics, education and commerce have been transformed into congenial adjuncts of show business, largely without protest or even much popular notice.  The result is that we are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death” (Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Neil Postman, pp 3-4).

Perhaps there will not be any disagreement with Postman on this.  I don’t think even the Christian community would balk or take an opposing side—in fact we have writers and preachers in the Christian community “preaching against the dangers of our entertainment culture.” But, do we see and recognize the danger among our own social habits as a Christian community?  Can’t anyone see the Las Vegasization of evangelism, of contemporary church growth, and, yes of preaching?  One of my goals before I die is to write a book on the Las Vegasization of preaching…something like this…Destroying Our Hearing: Preaching in an Entertainment Age.  Maybe I am just stuck on the destroying theme (see my book)…but you get the idea.  Jesus warned against idolizing one’s culture, not because there aren’t human benefits to be derived from it, but because idolizing makes one hard of hearing.  Seems to me, the more we make church and contemporary preaching a mimic of our entertainment culture, the more we will continue to have dull hearing.

“On the one hand there is enormous growth of the Church, and on the other its almost complete lack of influence.” ~ Ronald Chapman (1954)

In Harry Blamires’ novel, Cold War in Hell, there is a great scene where he describes English villagers exiting a quaint chapel after Sunday Evensong.  An angel called Lamiel and the main character of the story (the first person telling the story) are observing the scene. Listen in to the conversation.

     “That is a good thing to see,” said Lamiel.
     I thought [Lamiel’s comment] rather a sentimental utterance.  .  .  .  I decided to take him up on it.
     “Can we really decide whether it is a good thing, when we don’t know what these people are thinking or feeling?” I asked.
     “We can indeed,” Lamiel replied.
      “But suppose they go to church only because they think it is the proper thing to do?”
     “What better reason is there for going to church? Would you have them go on the grounds that it is an improper thing to do?” .  .  .
     “Well,” I said, “for all we know, they may have sat through a church service, paying very little attention to what they said or to what was said to them.”
      “Knowing human beings,” said Lamiel, “I should think that almost certain to be the case.”
      “Then isn’t it very hypocritical?”
      “Nonsense,” said Lamiel.  “It is merely human, in a justifiable sense of that much abused word.  .  .  .  They certainly cannot live at a feverish level of intellectual concentration or spiritual activity for more than a few moments at a time.  They must necessarily go through a great deal of unanalyzed repetition in the course of public worship.  Does that detract from the value of their worship?”
     “Their hearts ought to be in it—” I began, but Lamiel interrupted me.
     “Their hearts are most certainly in it, or they wouldn’t be there.  They’d be in a pub instead.  Let me ask you a question.  Suppose your son comes into your room in the evening before he goes to bed.  And suppose he says, `Good night, Father.’ Would you stop him and rebuke him, asking, `My boy, did you really mean that? Was your heart in it?’ Of course not.  His heart is in it, for he does it.  He does it because he knows it is the proper thing to do.  .  .  .  In the same way, men go to church not only because they wish to worship God, but in order that they may wish to worship God.”

This is a brilliant dialog, insightful, and defining.  I like this dialog because it reminds me why worship is important: It is practice for the very thing we were created.  Of course there is more to worship than this, but the weekly experience is so I become practiced at worshipping the God of the universe.

The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America by Richard John Neuhaus.  Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (May 1996)

This book put my faith to the test: Can I be in the world, but not of it?  Neuhaus’ “naked public square” refers to the public spaces in American life, which are naked or empty because religion and religious values have been systematically excluded from the public arena and from determination of public policy.  Though Neuhaus does not fault specifically the evangelical community, he does work through how, we, too, have abandoned the public square and have, by our habits and interaction—and non-interaction—with those in the public square had contributed to its nakedness (i.e., the anti-religious tendency of those in the public and its religious vacuum).  This book should be given to every politician—does anyone have a few hundred thousand dollars so we can do that?  Get the book and learn how you can clothe the naked public square.

“When it comes to reading and interpreting, as well as preaching and teaching the Bible these days, considerable confusion reigns in both pulpit and pew.  One of the problems consists in misunderstanding what kind of book the Bible is (success manual? Self help book? Daily light? Theological treatise? Historical document? Pragmatic guide? Mystical source? etc.) Other difficulties arise in actual homiletic and hermeneutic practices.  To top things off, many Bible interpreters have excessive confidence in the accuracy of their exegesis, confusing the infallibility of the text for their understanding of it” (“The Worldview-Driven Church, Part Three: The Ministerial Vision,” by David Naugle, p 9).

Right on point!  Much of my frustration stemming from poor interpretation and so-called application of Scripture (i.e., making is all about relevancy), indeed, centers on what people believe the Bible is for--“what kind of book” it is?--what people think they are suppose to “get out of it,” and how preachers/bible teachers use the Bible.  The Bible isn’t a self-help book or pragmatic guide, this I am sure of.  But it seems to me that both contemporary and trendy-up-to-date, and hip preachers and their listeners in the pew have low expectations of the Bible and a constricted view of what kind of book the Bible is.  We confuse application with revealed Scripture—meaning that we treat our application of Scripture as if our “practical applications” are inspired just as the text of Scripture is inspired.  The Bible is, if anything, a book that claims to present an-other-world worldview.  I agree with David Naugle’s question: What about a Worldview-Driven Church?  (I wonder if Dr. Naugle will seek to copyright the phrase Worldview-Driven?) I’d like to re-direct the question: Whatever happened to Worldview-Driven Preaching?

“Finally, my brothers, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh” (Phil 3:1-2, NIV version)

Paul has been relatively calm, like a mother caring for her child or a nurse tending an invalid.  Now, in 3:2, exhortation makes way for warning.  The NIV expresses the warning but once: “Watch out.” Actually, Paul says it three times: “Watch out for those dogs, watch out for those men who do evil, watch out for those mutilators of the flesh” (3:2, free translation).  The warning is harsh.  Paul’s tone is harsh.  His words are calculated and biting.

The father of the Philippian church chooses words that have even a harsh sound.  He wants to gain their attention quickly.  His words describing the false teachers and the agitators have the rough k sound: kunas (dogs); kakous ergatas (evil workers), katatomen (mutilators).  In each case he inverts a Jewish boast.  Dogs refers to those outside the covenant (Matthew 7:6; 15:26 27).  It was a dirty slang word used by Jews for Gentiles.  Evil workers was a play on a common Jewish and Christian term for missionary.  Thus reversing a positive title to indicate that those who had come into their midst were actually workers of evil rather than faithful bearers of the gospel (2 Corinthians 11:13; also see 1 Corinthians 3:13 15; 9:6; 1 Timothy 5:18; 2 Timothy 2:15 and Matthew 9:38).

A sample from my layman’s commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, Destroying Our Private Cities, Building Our Spiritual Life.  Download a free chapter, “Putting Jesus Back into Your Potential.”

I have been a Christian for twenty-nine years this past July 10th.  I have constantly heard, both from pulpits and amid casual conversation with fellow Christians, that most people are trying to work their way into heaven.  I have come to the place where I find this more a Christian cliché than reality.  I don’t find that people in general are trying to do the most they can to get into heaven.  Now I recognize in my limited experience, I have found that the “unsaved” seek to know how little they have to do to get into heaven--not how much.  When people reflect on how much they need to do or how good is good enough, it is not so they can do more, strive for perfection, or hit the highest mark.  No, it really means “what’s the least I can do to qualify for heaven.” (Really, I don’t think people think about this—trying to get into heaven—as much as we’d like to think.  I didn’t spend my first 20 years trying to figure out how to get into heaven.  The question never really arose.) I think that most people haven’t thought about it much until the question is asked of them.  Then it’s a question of weighing, not how much.  And then, at that point, they simply think they are good enough.  Really, no matter what we say. Andy Stanley, in his easy to read book, How Good Is Good Enough?, tells a little preacher’s story that has a practical point on the subject.

   The story is told of a Sunday school teacher whose assignment was to explain to the six-year-olds in his class what someone has to do in order to go to heaven.  In an attempt to discover what the kids already believed about the subject, he asked a few questions.
   "If I sold my house and my car, had a big garage sale, and give all my money to the church, would that get me into heaven?”
   "NO!" the children all answered.
   "If I cleaned the church every day, mowed the yard, and kept everything neat and tidy, would that get me into heaven?”
   Again the answer was, “NO!”
   "Well then,” he said, “if I was kind to animals and gave candy to all the children and loved my wife, would that get me into heaven?”
   Again they all shouted, “NO!”
   "Well, then, how can I get into heaven?”
   A boy in the back row stood up and shouted, “You gotta be dead!”

This is very true.  And that’s why it’s almost impossible for the unsaved to conceive that it is not how much one does, or how little, to get into heaven.  My interest here isn’t in figuring out how much the unchurched and unsaved calculate their entrance qualifications for heaven.  I am concerned about how I live and spend my time.  I already know the answer and it’s my role to provoke others into thinking about the answer, not necessarily the question.  Interestingly, whenever the New Testament talks about the condition of the unsaved it is to provoke the Christian community and the Christian to live in such a way to shed the light of the Gospel.  Jesus said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Matthew 16:24; Mark 8:34; see also Luke 9:23).  These words were written to a Christian community that had forgotten how to follow Jesus.  Then Jesus went on to explain this concept of gaining and losing: “Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.  What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?” (Matthew 16:25 26).  It is not my role to figure out if the unsaved are calculating their safe passage to heaven.  It seems my role, as Christian, is to live in such a way that others will see I am losing my life.  This then might provoke them to ask what I am losing my life for.