Words'nTone

One of my goals I have for this website is to promote sound exegesis and biblical preaching.  I have addressed this through quotes, book reviews, and curmudgeon-like comments In the Margins.  I have attempted to show how we need to reflect the Biblical text through a number of Rough Cut exegetical essays and my shorter comments in Gemara.  But I want to do more—make more comments on the subject, targeted at the sermon, preaching in general, and sermon preparation.  I have also wanted to write a book on Preaching (really the preaching moment, or a biblical theology of preaching--see my quote, “Sermon as redemptive historical event”).

Over the past year I have toyed with something a little less audacious.  I came up with the idea of writing, not a text book or a biblical theology on preaching, but something more like a book of reflections on the importance of the sermon.  There are plenty of “how to” books and solid books on preaching, so I wanted something more like a primer than a “how to.” So, why the sermon?  This is the one thing, that is the sermon, that each pastor gets to do every week almost without ceasing (accept for vacations).  And there are unacknowledged aspects of the sermon that go along with this week-in-week-out activity.  Of course, each congregation is subject to the interpretations and preaching ideas of the pastor through the sermons.  But, what goes unnoticed and with as equal of consequences, the congregations are also subject to the pastor’s (1) view of the sermon, (2) the pastor’s level of understanding and knowledge of the Bible (the Word of God) or the lack of it, and (3) their level of commitment to actually expositing the Bible to the people there.  These three things have a bearing on the spiritual vitality and biblical identity of the life of the congregation and of the inividual as well.

I find we tend to take this moment each week too lightly.  Both congregant and pastor alike—but mostly the pastor.  We misunderstand the biblical and redemptive value of the preaching moment; we misunderstand its inherent power; and we misappropriate the Bible itself to ends that are more fleshly and human and earthly than what the Bible as God-inspired Word is designed to bring about.

It is an awesome responsibility to claim to know what God wants a particular congregation to listen to week after week.  It is a scary thing to think that those claiming to give us God’s Word each Sunday are in reality not doing so.  I should have called this book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Pulpit.  But I have settled on simply a series of meditations on the importance of the sermon.  The catchy title is actually, Letting the Lion Out of Its Cage.  This is an obvious reference to what has been attributed to both John Calvin and Charles Spurgeon (you will see the quote in the first posting).

I came up with the idea of posting my rough drafts on my website this past summer.  So here it is.  I will start tomorrow with the first post.  Each thread will be a chapter section in the book (all of which you can see outlined to the right on the list of website topic areas).  My intention is also to publish this book with some of the comments I get as well. So, obviously pithy, creative, and insightful (whether critiquing or adding or rebuking, and even the rare agreement) might be attractive to my future publisher—and to me.  So comments are greatly encouraged.

This thread and its postings are not meant to be a “how to” on preaching or even an academic volume on the sermon.  These are merely my own reflections on various aspects of the sermon, sermon preparation, and preaching moment itself.  I will seek to post drafts and threads on Fridays and/or Saturdays each week.  I hope you enjoy and hopefully rethink some things, but mostly, I am ambitious enough to hope you will value the sermon a whole lot more and take it more seriously for the sake of your congregations.  And if you are a lay-person browsing into these threads, maybe you will become more aware of the issues relating to preaching and the value of the sermon and thus, hold you pastor a little more accountable.

     “Are you not thirsty?” said the Lion.
     “I’m dying of thirst,” said Jill.
     “Then drink,” said the Lion.
     “May I—could I—would you mind going away while I do?” said Jill.
     The Lion answered this only by a look and a very low growl.  And as Jill gazed at its motionless bulk, she realized that she might as well have asked the whole mountain to move aside for her convenience.
     The delicious rippling noise of the stream was driving her nearly frantic.
     “Will you promise not to—do anything to me, if I do come?” said Jill.
     “I make no promise,” said the Lion.
     Jill was so thirsty now that, without noticing it, she had come a step nearer.
     “Do you eat girls?” she said.
     “I have swallowed up girls and boys, women and men, kings and emperors, cities and realms,” said the Lion.
     “I daren’t come and drink,” said Jill.
     “Then you will die of thirst,” said the Lion.
     “Oh dear!” said Jill, coming another step nearer.  “I suppose I must go and look for another stream then.”
     “There is no other stream,” said the Lion. ~C.S. Lewis, The Silver Chair

Although most will admit a spiritual thirst exists, many are either ignorant of why it exists or where such a thirst can be filled.  I find that most simply refuse to acknowledge that God has something to do with their spiritual thirst.  More information may contribute little, however, to making sense of modern man’s spiritual thirst.  At times, simply hearing a story will often do more to reach the mind than an elegant argument.

The scene comes from The Silver Chair by C. S. Lewis.  Jill, one of the children, meets Aslan, the Lion, for the first time.  In the story, the Lion is the symbol for Jesus Christ.  Let’s listen in:

     When Jill stopped, she found she was dreadfully thirsty… [T]here was perfect silence except for one small persistent sound.  She listened carefully and felt almost sure it was the sound of running water.
     Jill…looked around her very carefully.  There was no sign of the Lion; but there were so many trees about that it might easily be quite close without her seeing it … But her thirst was very bad now, and she plucked up her courage to… look for that running water.
     …she came to an open glade and saw the stream, bright as glass… [A]lthough the sight of the water made her feel ten times thirstier than before, she didn’t rush forward and drink.  She stood still as if she had been turned into a stone, with her mouth wide open.  And she had a very good reason: just this side of the stream lay the Lion…
     “Are you not thirsty?” said the Lion.
     “I’m dying of thirst,” said Jill.
     “Then drink,” said the Lion.
     “May I—could I—would you mind going away while I do?” said Jill.
     The Lion answered this only by a look and a very low growl.  And as Jill gazed at its motionless bulk, she realized that she might as well have asked the whole mountain to move aside for her convenience.
     The delicious rippling noise of the stream was driving her nearly frantic.
     “Will you promise not to—do anything to me, if I do come?” said Jill.
     “I make no promise,” said the Lion.
     Jill was so thirsty now that, without noticing it, she had come a step nearer.
     “Do you eat girls?” she said.
     “I have swallowed up girls and boys, women and men, kings and emperors, cities and realms,” said the Lion.
     “I daren’t come and drink,” said Jill.
     “Then you will die of thirst,” said the Lion.
     “Oh dear!” said Jill, coming another step nearer.  “I suppose I must go and look for another stream then.”
     “There is no other stream,” said the Lion.

Most admit spiritual thirst exists, and today, many are indicating a need to fulfill this thirst.  However, many are left “dying for thirst” because they are afraid of dealing with God Himself.  Jesus said, “Whoever believes in me shall never thirst.” As Aslan points out to the child, “There is no other stream.”

© Chip M. Anderson (February 2008)
    Words’nTone, Habits of the Mind
    Originally written for a RZIM Slice of Infinity radio broadcast

So how can a Christian be a capitalist if we are exhorted by the bible to be self-less, not selfish, interested in others not our own self-interests?  I would suggest there are two types of self-interests.  Even Paul in Philippians 2 says, “Don’t merely look out for your own personal interests, but the interests of others.” And—obviously asking God through Christ to save me is in my ultimate best and self-interest. So it is possible to be a faithful Christian and to still consider your own self-interest—just not at the expense of others, nor in disregard to other’s self-interests.  Perhaps that is why there is a four wheel to our socioeconomic form: civic duty, or put simply a interdependency on the rest of our community.  Thus, my self-interests as a capitalism is secured and will have its highest potential for good when as many as possible share the benefits of this socioeconomic form of life (here in America).

In one sense my socioeconomic interest is personal, and in another sense my interests is dependent on the mutual interests of others.  Of course if in my self-interest I want to be able to purchase a shwingle-maker at a good price and I am only one out of 300 million who want or desire one, I will have to pay a rather hefty price for it.  All things being equal (pun intended), I would have to have an enormous income—most probably not a reality.  But if somehow hundreds of thousands of others are also interested in obtaining a good shwingle-maker, I benefit from others having this interest, for then the demand will keep the price down.  (Yes, overly simplified, I know.) Obviously capitalism, while purporting individual self-interests as a needed element to make it work, there is still a sense of interdependence on others in the system to make it work well—for your own interests. 

The same is true of other aspects of life in America.  It is in my self-interest to have a good education, learn well, and find a good job.  But it is also in my self-interests that as many as possible—if not all—have a similar experience.  It is in my self-interest to have all children gain a good education, have a good family life, and remain in stable relationships with their fathers (per the data listed in the first post on this thread).

In praise of capitalism and our constituted republic, almost all other forms of government do not offer such personal incentive to look out for the interests of others.  It seems build into the system.  Of course there is abuse, and greed, and malicious self-interests among those who benefit from our capitalistic form of economy.  This is true of dictatorships, all forms of socialist economies, monarchies, etc.  The yearning to return to biblical forms, so-called, of government conveniently forgets or ignores that greed, selfishness, and other forms of evil existed among the “elite” and “privileged” and, as well, among those “in charge” of the various governmental forms found in biblical history (i.e., tribal leaders, the judges, the priestly rulers, kings).  The socioeconomic concept of self-interest does not seem to me to warrant Christian rebellion against our form of government or economic way of life.  (Funny thing, those Christians that argue against, preach against, and self-righteously denounce capitalism, seem always to be benefiting from it all the while they criticize it.) Any socioeconomic form will fall prey to evil and destruction if only a selective few (as in most socialist or communistic economies), or even the selective many for that matter, “look out for their own personal interests, and not the interests of others.”

Again, capitalism works best if all enjoy and benefit from the land.  It is not in our self-interests to remain neutral, nor to collectively ignore the poor, especially poor children.  It is a good investment from an economic view point to provide some form (or forms) of public assistance, along with private aid, to remedy, ameliorate, or eliminate the barriers to self-sufficiency and a full and productive life—lives then that, through their own self-interests, will add to the civic best interests of all.  Not all self-interests are sin.

---

The first post in this thread, Helping the poor is in our self-interest…

I have not presented here or elsewhere that our American socioeconomic system, that is, the blend of a constituted republic and capitalism, is the biblical vision.  Not at all.  I am so surprised myself when such is read into the bible, and even more so flabbergasted when some form of collectivism or socialist form of government is read into it as well.  Neither are the facts nor the experience under the Torah of the Old or the vision of the New.  However, I do think the inspired and God-breathed principles can be applied to any form of government, including the socioeconomic form of capitalism.

Capitalism works best if all enjoy and benefit from the land.  Now that seems both reasonable from an economic and quality of life perspective, but also as one applies the principles of the Old Testament to our own socioeconomic experience.  With reagrd to almost all of the Old Testament texts regarding the poor, there is often a connection made between the poor and the land—between the most vulnerable populations who were landless (i.e., did not “own” property or have a family inheritance to family land) and full participation in the giftedness of being landed (cf. Deuteronomy 14:29).  Perhaps, as God designed it, societies and their civic and governing structures work best when everyone benefits from and is included “in the gift of the land.” Seems capitalism, as a economic form, has a high potential to fulfill God’s design for caring for and assisting the poor, i.e., the potntial for the poor to sharing in the blessings of this form of economy, that is to be landed.

It is not a question of redistributing wealth or some false-sense of equity or some socilist form of equality I am suggesting.  The bible does not describe a socioeconomic system that supports wealth distribution in order to make everyone equal.  Even those who advocate such in modern times, don’t really mean it—in their organizations, everyone gets paid differently and I never hear of their wealth being distributed.  They only want your wealth and mine to be more distributed.  Plus—it won’t work to make a “just” world.  Nonetheless, to not view some form of social and government, private and public as a necessary component for our socioeconomic system, is to both ignore God’s design for how we are to live as people in a society (of any kind) and to hinder the potential of our own form of socioeconomics.

---

The first post in this thread, Helping the poor is in our self-interest…

We cannot avoid thinking about economics when we describe life.  Nor as Christians can we separate the mundane of life from economics.  Just can’t.  Even though I don’t subscribe to the proof-texting methods of some who seem to see “more verses in the bible about money than about heaven,” I do find that there is much in the bible concerning life as it is to be lived and much of that comes to us through the language of economics.  Some might still be surprised, maybe even a little appalled or outraged, at my previous posting yesterday in this thread on poverty and our self interests.  (Good thing blogs are voluntary reading, ey?) Yes, it is true that your self-interest is at stake when we do not deal with issues of poverty, that is, ignoring the poor nor valuing the importance of civic and public policy working together to care for, advocate for, and assist the poor cost our economy $$—yours and mine included.  Someone still pays for the poor in one way, shape or another—that is, the outcome and consequences of poverty cannot be separated from our socioeconomic way of life.  If poor children are less likely to obtain sufficient education for gainful employment, or are more likely to be involved with drugs and crime, or simply more likely to be unhealthy, the consequences of such are paid for by the society at large one way or another.  Yes, in real dollars.

Here’s the rub, at least in how I view it.  Capitalism rests on three basic ideas or premises: 1) people are motivated by self-interests of some kind; 2) the concept of private property (i.e., property owned by an individual or family, not the crown or government leased or rented to an individual or family); and 3) the minimizing of the role of government.  The three make our socioeconomic system viable and work, mostly for the benefit of many of us.  (Yes, I include and have to admit this last one in my argument; but I will deal with that as well here.) The way I see it, even as Christians, we benefit from capitalism, that is our socioeconomic form of life, and therefore in some measure, each of us gain from a system that is built on our self-interests.  It seems ridiculously unfair to reap the benefits of our individual self-interests while at the same time we (1) despise and bash capitalism (i.e., as often heard among liberal and socialist Christians) and/or (2) argue against governmental assistance for the poor (i.e., as often heard among conservative Christians).  In fact such is illogical at the least, and evil at the worst.

This seems to be what is behind Jeremiah’s own words in his chapter 5 sermon:

     “They are fat, they are sleek,
        They also excel in deeds of wickedness;
        They do not plead the cause,
        The cause of the orphan, that they may prosper;
        And they do not defend the rights of the poor” (Jeremiah 5:28)

The “fat” and “sleek” are enjoying the benefits of their socioeconomic life, while depriving the same of the orphan and the poor.  They enjoy the fruits of the land, while not pleading the cause of the orphan “that they may prosper.” While we are feeding our self-interests through the socioeconomic life we are privileged to reside in, we allow a situation where others cannot enjoy the same.

The children born in poor families had no control over that, and they are viewed by God as the most vulnerable in any society.  It is not a question of mere charity—for that can keep them poor, I understand that—it is a matter of system, structure, and service that moves them out of poverty and into potential and prosperity, that is, into enjoying the goods and blessings of our socioeconomic way of life.

---

The first post in this thread, Helping the poor is in our self-interest…

On Wednesday I had the privilege of speaking to a group of area caseworkers, the frontline staff to many of our local human service agencies, on the topic of poverty, welfare, and self-sufficiency.  Most likely I didn’t have to try to convince that (small) crowd of the need for government to provide a means to assist and help the poor and marginalized in our communities.  I didn’t have to spend time on that part of the issue, that side of the debate.  Although I have spent many a thread and posting here on the biblical support for community-wide, governing entity support for the poor (and will likely continue to set forth that biblical support), I am amazed at the lack of acknowledgment and understanding that there is a socioeconomic self-interest for all community residents in caring for poor and offering assistance to them within the framework of our government and social structure.  And if you don’t like the idea of self-interests here, stop utilizing the American socioeconomic framework and its constitution to support a christianized view that argues againt government assistance for the poor.  You can’t have it both ways.  For our form of government is propped up by its cousin, capitalism.  Capitalism is a form of economics that is built on the concept of self-interest.  Either you want capitalism’s benefits or you don’t—and if you do, then you have a self-interest in what happens to and with the poor.  It is not in your self-interest to allow the poor to remain poor, for the conditions of poverty costs.

While presenting data on the subject of poverty, I showed two sets of information that not only has implications socially and morally, but economically as well.

Children in fatherless homes are:

    
• 5 times more likely to live in poverty

    
• 9 times more likely to drop out of school

    
• 37% more likely to abuse drugs

    
• 2 times more likely to be incarcerated

    
• 2.5 times more likely to become a teen parent

    
• 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders

    
• 32 times more likely to run away

And if that’s not enough, here are some statistics on the relationship between children living in poor families and education.  Students from poor families are:

    
• 9 test points lower in average IQ scores by age 5
      
• 2.0 times more likely to have repeated a grade
      
• 3.4 times more likely to have been expelled
      
• one-third less likely to attend college

One would think a God-ward morality would be enough to demand that communities address these issues and hold accountable our government representatives on the matter of policy regarding poor children.  There is also an economic, and as well, a quality of life issue that face us through this data.  It is not in the best interests for any community to leave children who are in fatherless homes or children in poor families without addressing these issue withinto public support and with programs that would help alleviate and ameliorate these conditions.

Each of the outcomes from the data represented above have an economic cost that works againts our self-interests.  Not only is there a moral aspect to the conditions of children living in poverty, additionally, the future conditions indicated by this data suggests that we’d do well to have policies and programs that alleviate the barriers of poor children that prevent full, prosperous, healthy and productive lives.  And, our own self-interests (i.e., the furtherance of our own socioeconomic experience and quality of life in America) suggests that collectively we should support some form of government assistance for these populations.  There is a return of investment.  Of course I am not suggesting that individuals or churches should not be offering assistance, but that both are needed—required, really.  We should, collectively, through the mechanism granted to us through our form of government—voting, advocacy, and redress—support public policies that will ameliorate the conditions of poverty, especially fatherless homes, in order to address and remove the barriers that prohibit self-sufficiency.  We should advocate and hold our government representatives accountable for such policies.  You see, our self-interests is at stake here, yours and mine both, for not addressing the issues of poverty, especially as it relates to educational attainment and family life, will not benefit our socioeconomic environment, in fact it will cost it and remove potential for prosperity.

---

This thread is continued for the next three days, for a total of four parts…

“To embrace Darwinism you would have to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, and non-reason produces reason.  I don’t have enough faith to believe that.” ~Lee Strobel, interview in Servant Magazine

“Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people (Matthew 4:23).

“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).

Yesterday, I quoted from the book Jesus in the Margins by Rick Mckinley:

“The love of Jesus doesn’t come to make us fit into American culture; it’s here to make us fit into heaven” (Jesus in the Margins , p 39).

I am not against creativity in worship, nor against creative methodologies for “outreach.” My big beef is that our chief aim always seems to be to build or expand our church—you know increase the numbers of attendees and volunteers for “ministry at church.” Worship should be about seeking the kingdom of God and seeking to mold the congregation so that it may be an influence in our world as believers in the gospel of the kingdom of God.  For crying out loud, we aren’t supposed to be building a social group in competition with other social groups.  We’re to pursue the kingdom of God and His righteousness.  And—just in case we missed it, that is how the “proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom” is carried out.  The gathering of the saints ought to be—certainly for fellowship, worship, and learning the teachings of the apostles (Acts 2:42)—but we can get so focused on meeting in the (our) temple, that we neglect spreading out and moving the gospel of the kingdom and being Jesus’ witnesses into all the world.  Problem is: those who get so temple-focused (building-focused) and self-absorbed with spirituality that is culturally comfortable will eventual lose their light (as did the churches in Asian Minor, Rev 2-3); or if God has mercy, He’ll send persecution on those who sit waiting in the temple (Act 8:1) in order to forcefully spread us out into the world.

“God doesn’t give much weight to society’s regard or cultural assumptions.  He isn’t afraid of what people might think.  In his crazy purposes and plans, he comes to the scandalous margins of society in order to identify with those of us who live in those places” (Rick Mckinley in Jesus in the Margins: Finding God in the Places We Ignore, p 32).

“The love of Jesus doesn’t come to make us fit into American culture; it’s here to make us fit into heaven” (Jesus in the Margins , p 39).

“Jesus isn’t really concerned with moving us into a new economic strata or a different social structure, and I think the church has missed this.  Jesus isn’t so much concerned about removing you from the margins as he is with helping you understand that you don’t have to be named by the margins of this society.  He says you’re named by God.  Jesus himself was a carpenter, then a homeless wanderer, and he died the death of a criminal.  But none of that named him.  He knew he was the Father’s Son” (Jesus in the Margins , p 38).

I am continually reminded that a Christian’s calling and the community of faith, the church, ought to be countercultural in as many ways as possible.  So much of contemporary preaching (and I am so hesitant in calling preaching—sharing at best, really) and the up-to-date concepts of church-growth and the modern-spin on sanctification seem more related to the Bill of Rights than the Bible and more American life-defining than Christ’s discipleship.  In fact discipleship today seems more design to make us, as Christians, fit into the stream of American life—and to prosper and to be upward mobile.  In but not of…that’s the calling.  The process of sanctification and discipleship is the struggle we should have and go through in order to be more fit as followers of Jesus Christ, than our attempt as being more comfortable in our American culture.  There will always be that tension—we should always feel a little uncomfortable in our American skin.

I have found that most people that don’t believe Christianity, or believe in God, or believe that Jesus did miracles, or that the Bible is inspired, or that there is a heaven and a hell—simply don’t like Christianity.  Not really a matter of believing—it’s a matter of liking (to but it blandly).  As if liking or not liking something makes something true or false.  I have friends, good friends, very good friends that are skeptics, agnostics, and even hard-core atheists, all who have a range of disbelief from just not caring to “its nice for you, but not for me” to down right, borderline hatred.  Some are in deep pain over life’s unfair twists.  Some have hidden pain that actually defines their disbelief (though I doubt they’d admit this).  For some, life is on a good track—no sense changing it with some silly conversion.  I was there once.  Found the religion of my great Aunt Hazel and the ridiculous beliefs of my Christian Air Force colleagues to be out of date, off the wall, for old people, and a bit silly—I had to live in the “real world.” But then one thing came to mind—what if it’s true?  What if this Jesus really did rise from the dead?  Would that make a difference to me?

So I began, at least, thinking about whether it’s true or not.  Not whether I liked Christianity or not.  I found that I had to decide if Jesus dying on a cross for my sins and truly being raised from the grave actually would mean something to me.  Had to decide if I really cared if it was true or not?  Because, if it wouldn’t change anything, if it didn’t matter, then it wouldn’t matter if it were true or not.

I actually did some thinking and reading and research and decided it did matter if Christianity is true.  If Jesus was indeed raised from the dead, that would change everything.  Frank Morrison, a lawyer and skeptic, set out to “prove” that the Christian story is a fairytale.  He applied his discipline as a lawyer to “the case.” He ended up writing a little book called, Who Moved the Stone?.  His first chapter was entitled, “The Book that refused to be written.” Listen to his conclusion:

“...we...have stumbled, almost unconsciously, upon the true answer to one of the profoundest questions which has engaged the thought of the Church from the time of the Early Fathers to our own...There may be, and, as the writer thinks, there is certainly, a deep and profoundly historical basis for that much disputed sentence in the Apostle’s Creed “The third day he rose again from the dead.”

Anyone investigating, with an honest mind, will find that the Old and New Testament are the most reliable and accurate documents of antiquity.  Bottom line, however, is: do you really care if it is true?  And, would it matter if Jesus truly did rise from the dead?  To you, would it matter if the Bible was true?  Would it matter if it were all true?

Airplane ticket: $220

In tolls and parking: $18

Look on my daughter’s face when her mother walked in to the living room: Priceless.

This is how I tell it.

My daughter’s birthday, her 15th was last week, January 12th.  For part of her presents, I surprised her by flying her mother out from Minnesota.  Her mother had not been with Amanda on her birthday since she was probably four years old.  It was about time. 

Many friends and family members who read this blog know I have step-kids, so it is obvious that I am remarried.  Amanda’s mother lives in MN and visits a couple times throughout the year and during the summer months. In late November I plotted this little surprise, obviously along with her mother.  Amanda is a great, almost all A student.  She is responsible, considerate, and a great person.  Despite such much that can mess up a child, she has maintained both her Christian faith and her love for her parents.  She well-deserved this little—humungous—surprise.

I have to keep it a secret for weeks.  Let me tell you it was tough.  I swore my folks, my wife, and Amanda’s mother to secrecy.  And as far as I could tell, there were no tell-tail signs that something was even up.  Amanda was planning out her birthday weekend—a movie on Friday night with her girlfriends, a sleep over afterward with obviously frozen pizza’s and snacks.  It was a small group—close, fun friends from school.  It was planned that I’d have to accompany the girls to the movies—they were seeing Sweeney Todd.  Of course I had to sit far, far away to give the girls “room to be themselves.” Little did Amanda know I won’t be the chaperoning parent—nor did her mom know either.  So I had to not give on, but help Amanda plan and shop and execute.

And for picking her mother up—I had a late night business meeting for my boss, far away almost in New York.  I picked Stamford, CT, because it was actually on the way to the airport.  We’d be back even after Amanda had gone to bed, that is if we made it much past 11 pm.  Thankfully it was earlier—we approached the house about 10:15 pm.  I walked in, Amanda was still sitting on the couch waiting for me.  Her mother trailed into a few steps behind me.  Amanda looked up—thought I had traveled with a colleague to the meeting (she later said) and didn’t even recognize it was her mother.  Well, she wasn’t suspecting it, nor could she have imagined that her mother would be there.  It took a few seconds…seemed like a long time though…then it hit her.  Amanda’s eyes went wide.  Her mouth dropped.  And stared in silence, again for what seemed like a long time.  Finally she mouthed, “My mother is here!” No words, but clear.

After hugs and greetings and crying and hugs…she hit me. 

And then hugged me and said, “You brought my mother out for my birthday.”

Her step-brother, Robert, said it best, as he watched Amanda realize her mother had walked through the door.  “I didn’t see that coming.”

I love my daughter and I’d give her the world if I could.  Bringing her mom out for her birthday is small in comparison.  When my daughter is 30, fifteen years from now, I want Amanda to remember how much she was loved and is loved.

Oh by the way, a week earlier I actually for the first time in probably forty-nine years talked to my real, biological father and some long lost siblings…for another posting…

It all started in a garden.  Life began in a garden.  And, the first deception was in the garden.  Jesus prayed and was betrayed in a garden, and after being crucified, was buried in a garden-tomb.  And the finale, the end of the story, depicts a restored garden where the Lamb of God and the Father, the Lord of Heaven and Earth shine their light and reign with His people, safe and secure, forever and ever.

The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed (Genesis 2:8).

While He was still speaking, behold, a crowd came, and the one called Judas, one of the twelve, was preceding them; and he approached Jesus to kiss Him.  But Jesus said to him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?” (Luke 22:47-48).

At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid (John 19:41).

Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street.  On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.  There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him; they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads.  And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever (Rev 22:1-5).

One can read throughout the Old Testament multitude of passages that depict (promise) that God will restore His throne and rightful place among man, and many—if not all—of these passages are crafted in the language of a sanctuary-garden.  The garden imagery isn’t without significance, for in the ancient world kings and the politically wealthy and powerful all had gardens that in miniature depicted their reign and rule over their territory.  Many of these gardens represented the place, the garden-sanctuary, of their god(s).

Also depicted in Scripture are the ungodly, anti-theocratic (anti-Yahweh) kings and nations who build gardens to represent their reign and rule, power and authority and might.  One example is Assyria in Ezekiel 31:3-16.  Here is the rub.  The stewards or vice-regents of the original Garden in Eden were commission to extend the borders of God’s garden outward in order to encompass the untamed (untilled) remainder of the earth.  Adam, and eventually Israel who received the same commission, failed.  But in the vacuum created by disobedience there rose illegitimate-potentates, counterfeit-gods and their nations who took up the commission to build and extend their gardens (their rule and authority).

W. A. Gage, in The Gospel of Genesis, points out that such endeavors, the “planting of gardens” by unbelieving kings and empires, are counterfeit and illegitimate expressions of the Adamic commission given by God to His people.  The unbelieving plant gardens “to enjoy the aesthetic without ethic” and they “collectivize themselves…to seek a community without a covenant.” This continues today in our world where many leave the God of the universe out, foreign, distained, uninvolved in their public arenas and public discourse.  Empires are built—small and large, personal and geographic—without God’s ethic (here I mean His will and reign).  Our own society seeks to enjoy the aesthetic without ethic and attempts to build community without covenant.  It is the Church, not to nation-build, but to express the kingdom of God, to extend God’s garden (His rule and reign) over territories of public and private domain, both local and national, where God’s rule is absent or left to the weed pile.  If the Church doesn’t do this, we like Adam, relinquish our commission and allow the rise of unbelieving gardeners and the development or furtherance of illegitimate gardens.

*see G.K. Beale’s The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God for a fuller discussion on the topic of God’s garden and Adamic commission.

The Real Face of Atheism by Ravi Zacharias, Baker Books (September 2004)

Atheists not only posit God’s non-existence, they also operate within their own system of faith—their own faith assumptions—and assumptions that has many philosophical and practical contradictions.  The Psalmist’s words still ring wise and true: “A fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Ps 14:1).  Ravi Zacharias does not just ask the all-important question, “Does God exist?” He asks, “Is atheism a sustainable belief?” The Real Face of Atheism is a revised edition of Ravi’s first published book, A Shattered Visage (1993).  Ravi is a popular evangelist and apologist for the Christian faith, and a master storyteller.  This is evident in this book, which also makes Ravi’s style very readable.  He is good at taking difficult concepts and, without dumbing them down, makes them simple to understand.  This book is borderline academic, but yet is written in a way that makes it easier to grasp the logic of the Christian faith and the illogic of the atheist’s belief system.  The text, because of the numerous illustrations, stories, and quotes, is enjoyable to read and takes the edge off the difficult philosophical concepts needed in the discussion on God’s existence vs. non-existence.  This book is a good first book for the Christian on the subject and is great to give to non-Christian friends, or someone who is still questioning God’s existence.  There is plenty of “preachable points” that can also enhance sermons and bible studies in order to arm congregations with reasonable answers to give when ask about the hope within us.

“The Word of God is so weak that it suffers to be despised and rejected by people.  For the Word, there are such things as hardened hearts and locked doors.  The Word accepts the resistance it encounters and bears it” ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Discipleship