“When we say ‘Kingdom of God,’ no one gets apprehensive, as if we had just announced that a powerful army is poised on the border, ready to invade. When we say radical things like ‘Christ,’ ‘love,’ believe,’ ‘peace,’ and ‘sin’—words that in other times and cultures excited martyrdom—the sounds enter the streams of conversation with no more splash than baseball scores and grocery prices” ~Eugene Peterson in The Contemplative Pastor: Returning to the Art of Spiritual Direction
“All right lads. I know there is not a faint heart among you. I know you are as anxious as I am to get into close action. Now we must bring him right up beside us before we spring this trap. That will test our nerve and discipline will count just as much as courage. The Acheron is a hard nut to crack; more than twice our guns and more than twice our numbers. And they will sell their lives dearly. They mean to take us as a prize and we’re worth more to them undamaged. Their greed will be their downfall. England is under threat of invasion and though we be on the far side of the world, this ship is our home. This ship is England” (Captain Jack Aubrey, HMS Surprise, in the film, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World).
When I am researching a subject, whether it be for a grant, a paper on workforce development, or some biblical study or exegesis of a text, I pay attention to everything—even commercials, billboards, side comments by people at a nearby table at a restaurant, the news, even things my kids say and do. I couldn’t help but be listening when I was watching one of my favorite movies, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. I am in the midst of studying and researching and thinking about Mark 4, parables, evangelism, and social action, so I am keen on everything around me to inform me and give me insight. I try not to be too allegorical on these matters, but I did find a rather poignant speech by Captain Jack Aubrey in the film rather insightful, relevant, and stimulating in regard to my thinking on evangelism and the kingdom of God. He was giving his crew a courage-motivating speech, not unlike George Washington’s “give me one more month” speech at the end of the revolutionary war. I quote the scene above. (The link will let you in on the scene.) I found it, well, rather relevant to my research, actually.
Probably now that I have given the context of my juxtaposing of research on evangelism and the Captain’s words (above), the relevance and parallel is obvious. But really, it is very obvious. Like the men on board the Surprise, serving His Majesty the King of England, so, too, are we, Christians, aboard the Lord’s ship, the HMS The Church. (Okay…that’s a little much, but you get the idea.) We, too, are on the far side of the world, far away from God’s heavenly throne. But it is our home, the church; this ship, it is heaven. I was struck far beyond the obvious however.
Our evangelism as it presently stands as mere proclamation keeps us from truly engaging the community around us—and from a comfortable distance as well for many, I might add. However, we need to get into “close action” with the world around us, and this certainly will “test our nerve” and, Captain Jack couldn’t have been more dead on when he said to his men, “discipline will count just as much as courage.” We can protest the world, stand bold as spiritual heroes all we want, be separatists, but it will take discipline, focus, intention to allow God’s reign to work its mystery through us in the world around us. This is one reason I find proclamation-evangelism as only one component (and way too safe a component) of evangelism, and not ultimately sufficient in accomplishing the task of the church. On the far side of the world here, we must be involved with social action, which engages the community (gets us into close action). Evangelism as proclamation allows for two potential outcomes, one private and one public. Proclamation-evangelism seeks to win a person to Christ (which is a good thing), but since we make no demands on the grace of salvation, the potential public outcome is only a secondary “nicety.” This is how many think society is to change—by individual conversions resulting in better, more moral, living. But it is not required as a condition for salvation, so the public outcome is only secondary, a potential by-product.
However, opening ourselves up to the idea that social action can be evangelism allows us to fulfill the actual outcome of the presence of God’s reign—namely, seeking to apply God’s righteousness “on the far side of the world” (as it were). Social action that seeks to make real God’s righteousness and dominion in the very structures and systems of relationships around us (that is within the socio-economic public realm) is evangelism—spreading the goodness of the kingdom of God. It is truly asking and meaning the Lord’s Prayer, “Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” This is “close action.” This is bringing ourselves “right up beside” those in the world. But social action “will test our nerve and discipline will count as much as courage.” May there be not one faint heart among us.
“So long as we expend our energies pointing to the failures and inconsistencies of one party in this contest while remaining oblivious to the failures and inconsistencies of the other, we are simply engaging in an ecclesiastical tug-of-war between two teams of pious hypocrites. Meanwhile, life around us degenerates into hell on earth.”
“So long as evangelicals engage, then, in prescribing only moral clichés to difficult social and political problems, they are in fact avoiding any direct interrelating of their faith with the sociopolitical world around them.” ~Congressman Paul Henry, Politics for Evangelicals
, 1974
I am always amazed at the charge against Christians—against serious-minded Christians—of being exclusive. I am puzzled over what seems on the surface to be a legitimate objection, but actually is quite unreasonable, silly, and really ultimately only an excuse to continue in one’s disbelief and/or refusal to reasonably discuss, examine the evidence, and to be generally open-minded. (Don’t you love it, open-minded is often used as a self-designation of atheists, but really they are the ones most closed-minded.) For some, it is simply an excuse to continue to be disobedient to the truth, a pretext to be mad at God, to show displeasure over something that one blames God for, or simply mad at Christians. Nonetheless, I am amazed when I hear the complaint that Christianity and the Bible are exclusive. Of course the Christian faith is exclusive. But really, the accusation and label of being exclusive is often a hollow negative charge—that Christianity and Christians, especially evangelicals, exclude others, whether it be in fellowship, in acceptance, and especially the exclusion from a heavenly afterlife, or so-called exclusion from participating in society. Amazing. The accusation of exclusivity, nevertheless, is a faulty excuse for disbelief.
Shocking, there is truth to the statement. As Ravi Zacharias has so well pointed out, “Christianity seems to be the only world religion accused of being exclusive.” You see, that’s the point. Such accusation of exclusivity is a faulty excuse to exclude Christianity, and worse, for an argument for disbelief because every religion has a line of exclusivity, as well as does atheism. In fact, I’d say every person has some measure of exclusivity within his or her own personal worldview, lifestyle, and belief system (or disbelief system). There is always the line drawn that divides what is believed and disbelieved (about almost everything). This is exclusivity.
There are two points relevant to those who accuse Christians of being exclusive as a reason for disbelief or rejection (besides that such a position is itself exclusivist). First, since every religion and belief system is exclusive in nature (and everyone has some form of exclusivity within their own personnel belief system), one should consider that it is a matter of whether the exclusivity is true or false; that is, does it have a foundation that is reasonable, fits reality, and is based on truth?
Second, one might consider a more poignant view on the matter of exclusivity and religion, namely how do those who do the excluding treat those who are excluded. Christians are to treat all with love and respect, even going the extra mile to provide help, assistance, love, the meeting of needs, even putting one’s well-being above those that are excluded (i.e., outsiders). Now this is tricky, for the true Christian doesn’t actually judge whether another is ultimately excluded or not—the Christian leaves that to the final judgment of God. Meanwhile, although believing many will be finally excluded from heaven and sentenced to hell, separated by God on the final day, no one on this side of that judgment is excluded from Christian charity, respect, and love. In fact, the exclusive believing Christian is to die for those who will ultimately be excluded. No other religion has this built into its belief system. Many religions practice excluding now, and it shows in how they treat outsiders. Perhaps this is one reason some actually accuse Christians of being exclusivists, because some Christians, who misunderstand how they are biblically to treat , judge now and are not loving and respectful of outsiders. Let’s not give that possibility for an excuse. Nonetheless, it is still a faulty to accuse Christians of being exclusivists simply as an reason for disbelief.
Let’s start with the primary prooftext found in Hebrews 7:
For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all the spoils, was first of all, by the translation of his name, king of righteousness, and then also king of Salem, which is king of peace. Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually. Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest’s office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises. But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also [Hebrews 7:1-12].
The first and primary problem is that there is no context here in this text to naturally assume or lead to a command that sounds something like,
“Abraham, who proceeded Levi, the founder of the first redemptive priesthood, gave a tenth of his captured spoils to Melchizedek, who is a type of Christ and foreshadowed the present redemptive era, which is better [the language of the writer of Hebrews], ultimate, and final, therefore you are, as a Christian, obligated to give a tithe of your earned income before taxes to the church budget to support everything from 401ks to pews and carpet, buildings, and various sundry bills incurred by a church culture indebted to being building centered” [my paraphase of this verse wrongly interpreted and applied].
This direction for application and an imperative to give a tithe to cover a church budget is simply not there. This type of command simply does not follow the line of thinking in the Hebrews text. If one argues that the “tithing of Abraham” was before the law and the temple and as such does not come to an end as does the law and the temple, then why not other things such as sacrificing that happened before the temple as well? In fact, Abraham sacrificed as well as “tithed” to this king-priest—does this mean that Christians are obligated to make such sacrifices still, even though the temple and law are finished? I think not. Such argumentation is both unbiblical (certainly not exegetical from the text) and it is silly, really. This text is there to establish that Jesus belongs to a priesthood that is eternal. The command that follows (in application to) to this text is: “Be faithful and do not abandon your commitment to Christ.” The original author (who I think is Luke) never fathomed that there would be a community of faith housed in brick and mortar and countless in-house “ministries” that needed large budgets maintained by those who gather each week in a building-centered church. Plus that’s ironic, seeing that the idea of a building was what they were getting away from.
In fact, the writer of Hebrews gives us his main point:
Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man [Hebrews 8:1-2].
Part of a longer argument that reaches to Hebrews 10:18, and then, in verse 19, we hear the application, the “therefore” of this argument regarding Jesus’ supremacy as the consummate head of an eternal priesthood:
Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus…Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful; and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near [Hebrews 10:19ff].
The writer wants the new community of believers to know who they are and that they, despite opposition, persecution, the “things of this world,” and death, are indeed the true community of an eternal city not made with hands. This text is about perseverance, not tithing, and certainly not for recreating a building-centered religious bureaucracy made with hands that replaces the temple made with hands. I am obviously not opposed to offerings that support and pay for local expressions of the Church’s mission, but supporters of tithing as a Christian obligation need to look elsewhere for “proof” for its biblical authority (if there is one). (Again, please note, this is not to argue that giving to one’s local church is wrong or should be withheld, but this text is not a proof-text for making Christians feel guilty for not tithing.)
I am a proud stepfather for sure. My 12 year old stepson, Robert, two weeks ago decided he’d like to try running in our community road race, a 5k. It would be his first time, no training, just a desire to run with some friends. He placed first in his category, but overall 69th out of 277 at about 25 minutes. Not too shabby. I told him I could find other races. He wanted me to. The Fairfield Road Race was a short week away—we signed him up, but this time we bought him running shoes...he raced the other race in his skateboarding shoes!
The day came. He was feeling good; excited. Lots of runners encouraged him. When it was time to line up, he wanted to be at the head of the line—right at the starting line. Normally a parent is concerned about the finish line, but I was more so, with Robert, concerned about the starting line—because he wanted to be first. First. Me first. That’s what Robert is all about. Not first at the finish line—he understood that wasn’t possible. But just first at the start. And that’s the way he is in life. Always concerned about the start, never the finish. Me first. I almost was willing to pull him out of the line and make him go back—for two reasons 1) just because Robert needs to learn and 2) he was going to get trampled by a hundred runners quicker, more experienced, and massively taller than he. But I noticed something I rarely see in Robert. He looked focused. I sensed he knew what he was doing. He was aware of where he was and who surrounded him, but that wasn’t bothering him. The very much taller men around him made slight comments to each other (I can see that happening) and they stared at this pintsized novice down below. But Robert grew up a little that day—he was focused. I trusted that look and bet on him not being trampled to death.
Then the shout, ready. And then the count down 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and they were off...and Robert pacing the large runners immediately with no problem. He was gone. 3.1 mile (that’s the 5K) to go, so we walked back to the finish line. The runners that surrounded Robert at the beginning, I had noticed, were among the first to cross the finish line. To the amazement of many Robert appeared at around the 21.30 mark and then by the time he was in the shoot and hit the finish line he timed at 22 minutes, 12 seconds. I was so proud of Robert. But it was not so much for his finish--which was impressive for a second time runner at the age of twelve. No. But for his focus at the beginning. Focus, not first. A little growing up had happened. Later at home, I asked Robert why he thought I didn’t stop him from being first (for the reasons I stated above). I asked, “What do you think I was looking for?” He replied, “Focus.” He had been listening to me all these years. How about that? He said, “You knew I was focused.” I smiled and said, “That’s how we finish the race.” I think he caught the metaphor.
A number of years ago a former pastor had a great idea to get people to come to church. On one Sunday morning he asked us to list three topics on a 3 x 5 card located in the bulletin that our friends would like to hear from the pulpit. He was to run a series of sermons that would interest our friends and the un-churched—perhaps they would come to church then if the topics had some practical value to them. This was a no-brainer for me: I listed “Workforce Development” as the first and for another “the issue of poverty.” Later I asked the pastor if he planned on preaching on my friend’s interest areas. He noted I had written “Workforce Development” and made this comment: “That’s your area.”
He never preached on “Workforce Development (nor, on poverty), but I mark that time as a pivotal moment where I decided I needed to investigate the relationship of our faith, church-growth, and issues related to “Workforce development” and poverty. For sure these areas are “mine” in the sense that I work professionally within the social service world in a Community Action Agency, whose mission it is to alleviate the causes of poverty and to move families toward self-sufficiency. But these areas are equally the Church’s business as well.
Within my own Christian community and circle of Christian friends, and as well in much of the literature I have read, many simply respond to the issues of poverty and employment by referencing the Apostle Paul’s words to the Thessalonians: “if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either” (3:10). Ironically this verse has little to do with the issue of poverty and more to do with the church’s misunderstanding of eschatology; but it is often quoted as a reason for the poor being poor and a basis for the Church’s inaction toward the issues of poverty.
As a result of much study on the role of the Church with regard to the issues of poverty I was led to the topic of evangelism verses social action, and in particular, Mark’s parables in chapter 4. Interestingly, as clear as the parable of the Sower who sows is related to spreading the Gospel, this parable and its companions in Mark 4 are rarely utilized to understand the nature, content, and potential activity of evangelism. Usually, if mentioned at all, evangelism in Mark 4 is, for most Christians, a self-evident concept of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ, and in particular, His death for the forgiveness of sins. However, like the misreading of Paul’s words in Thessalonians, the Mark 4 parables and its context are, as well, misread, especially with regard to evangelism’s relationship to eschatology, and in particular the implications of the inauguration of God’s reign in history.
If the church wants to be relevant—as we hear so much in the pop-theology of church-growth—one would wonder why “Workforce Development” isn’t more highly regarded as a concern for the Church.
As a Community Action Agency we produce a community assessment every three years (with annual updates). This process is quite an undertaking. It consists of survey data (of clients, frontline staff, other agency staff, agency Board members), recent local newspaper articles, demographic data, the most recent census data, focus groups, relevant collateral information (other surveys, too), and research, as well as just plain research on the subject of poverty, the poor, trends, and relevant studies. In fact I spend time researching those who research our locale and region—real estate companies, the local and State Board of Educations, the regional Workforce Investment Board, and when I can find it, business research from companies who might be planning to do business in our area or build (such as MacDonald’s, hotels, manufacturing companies, shopping stores, etc.). And, of course I run many searches on www.census.gov (American fact finder).
Last fall (2007) I produced our most recent Community Assessment—this year I have updated it with recent and relevant material. From this process I produce a rather lengthy paper—this year it is over 45 pages long. But it can all be boiled down to my top ten priority list of “Greatest Need Areas” or the top ten greatest gaps in service (depending on how I refer to it). This will be our agency’s top ten list of areas that need to be addressed to meet people’s needs. Of course there is a difference between a general need assessment and a specific one. Mine deals specifically with the needs of low-income and economically at-risk populations. (The difference can be seen in that a recent and local general needs assessment produced as its top two needs areas “traffic congestion” and “personal stress,” whereas the top two need areas related to my research related to the low-income population (this year) are “access to affordable healthcare” and “access to affordable childcare.” Politians take note!)
My point however is not this process or my conclusions—which I do believe are relevant for this political season—but in focusing on the top, say, five greatest need areas relevant to Americans, I have a suggestion to those running for high office. Although the top five will change somewhat from region to region, probably county to county, I understand this is a nation-wide general election, so what I think here is a national need assessment of the top five issues facing Americans as a whole. And my point—I think our two major candidates for the presidency of the United States should have five specific debates on how they’d address the top five issues or need areas facing Americans. I suspect they already know what they are—healthcare, education, national security, the economy, and cost of energy (list not in order of priority). I am guessing from what I have read…and I think I am pretty darn close here.
I say five two hour long debates. Some of the format can be structured like the current presidential debates (blah blah blah), but I’d leave room (at least an hour) for open back and forth debate (like that one episode of West Wing in its last season—fantastic!). Let the candidates articulate how they’d seek to address each issue and address why their opponent’s approach or lack of is not going to work as well or at all. (And how’d they pay for it too!) Focus on one area at a time, not on talking points like “the war in Iraq,” or “the oil companies,” or “family values”…you know catch words that are designed to hit emotions in the audience, but mean nothing in turns of actually actions or steps…I mean real discussion on the top five things that people face everyday and what plagues their minds about the future. I know this won’t happen. It will make the candidates vulnerable. And a particular candidate might not be given to such standing debate…but if I were a candidate, I’d take that risk…I’d even schedule one of these each week in the fall and ask the other to just show up—the press will follow and so will the crowds. Let’s see if any of these guys read my blog. Both Barak Obama and John McCain should be reading my blog!
Yesterday I pointed out a very ironic juxtaposition between a comment about President Bush supposedly bringing disregard to the Constitution and a real comment that cuts across the constitution with total disregard. Yes, ironic and a sad commentary on a one-sided political debate. The other day I read some letters to the editors of the New York Post (6/16/08) regarding the government-run Senate restaurant. The Letters were addressing a previous article “Do as Dems say, Not as They Dine,” referencing that the Senate Cafeteria had lousy service and lousy food. The cafeteria’s review came not buy the general public or a restaurant reviewer, but from California’s Senator Dianne Feinstein. Apparently she had had enough of the bad service and bad food and made the comment that the cafeteria should be “privatized.” A Margaret Weber of Hauppauge, NY wrote:
“Apparently, the Senate’s restaurants have lost $2 million this year and $18 million since 1983.
“The government can’t even run a restaurant, yet it wants to take over our health care?
“I think I am going to be sick.”
Now, I think that’s hilarious—and sad all at the same time. Please note I lived in Canada and my daughter was born in Calgary Alberta and my experience with their health care system was a positive one. (Also note Canada doesn’t have a national health care system; they have a Provincial Health Care System—for each Province has its own system. Just a thought.) And I am in agreement that healthcare is a national interest issue, just that the solution is not to be found in a national government regulated and operated system. I think however, the nice lady from Hauppauge is dead on. If the government can’t even run a restaurant, they will never be able to operate a healthcare system that will be 1/6 of our GNP. I find it surprising while the countries that have been under national healthcare models are slowly turning to market-driven healthcare, there is a political party advocating a national health care model for the U.S. This is silly—and poor judgment to say the least—why in the world would we seek to model a failed and failing system?
Likewise, another Letter on the same subject noted that the only reason Senator Feinstein wants to “privatize” the restaurant is because it affected her. The person from Staten Island making the comment listed a host of other government run things that are quite lousy, but noted that Feinstein isn’t advocating for their “privatized” operation because they do not affect her. I’d add that Congress and the Senate and all Government employees for that matter will not care if there is a national health care because it will not affect them—they’d have their own. It won’t affect them (just like Social Security doesn’t affect them because they don’t have to pay into it).
Here are simply good observations from regular people—and good reasons for not giving the government the power to impose a national healthcare system on all of us. They can’t even run a café.
PS. I think we do need a national debate on the issue of healthcare and find solutions that leave it in the free market system and not in the hands of government. I’d like to see the two candidates for President debate this one subject for three hours. If they can’t even do that, don’t given them the power to create a system that will fail anyway. See my post for tomorrow.
Although I have very deep convictions about politics, I don’t usually bore you with political items, especially promoting a candidate over another. But I can’t help but mention two items of interest, well at least to me, that bears on this year’s presidential aspirations. One is a general policy position some are taking (which will be tomorrow’s post) and one stems from two comments made—one by Al Gore and one by Barak Obama—while Gore endorsed the Democrat presumptive nominee. They are both funny and ironic and I can’t help myself.
I had heard that former Vice President Gore finally—with such daring—decided to follow the crowd and had endorse Barak Obama for President. His speech at a gathering the other night when Gore made the endorsement public was play and replayed over and over again in the news. But no one, not even conservative talking heads made this observation.
Gore shouted out, “After eight years of incompetence, neglect and failure, we need change…After eight years when our Constitution has been dishonored and disrespected, we need changes.” The speech went on for more of similar content, but it’s that reference—with no proof of course, just the rhetoric of impassion political speech—to the “dishonoring” and “disrespecting” of the constitution that caught my attention (as it did the embolden and stirred-up crowd, too). Later, as Nedra Pickler in an article on the night’s endorsing event highlighted Obama’s praise of the former VP and once Presidential contender himself, Al Gore. she observed Obama’s return praise and wrote, “Obama stoked lasting Democratic anger over the 2000 outcome when he recognized Gore as ‘the winner of the popular vote for president.’” To which Obama snapped back a reminder of history for them, saying, “You remember that.” And, Pickler writes, “the crowd of 20,000 erupted in raucous applause.”
Now that’s funny and not caught by the analyzing pundits, and certainly not caught by the stirred-up crowd…and I will guess not even put together by the two giving the speeches either. On the one hand we hear without content or proof that the current President has brought harm to the Constitution of the United States, and then on the other, juxtaposed to the first comment, the potential future President of the United States say that Al Gore had won the popular vote, implying that he really won the Presidenency. Now that’s really unconstitutional, for the founders chose not to have a President elected by popular vote. In fact, there once was a time when there was no general election for President. The Constitution, and in the founders’ wisdom, decided to have electors from the States cast ballots for President. And it is true that Bush lost the popular vote, but he won the electoral vote and that’s what matter constitutionally. So who seeks to harm the Constitution? It is merely rhetoric to stir up the crowd, but it is funny and ironic that one person is accusing another of harming the Constitution while at the same time advocating something that is unconstitutional. I think that’s funny. (Isn’t Obama a formed professor of the Constitution?)
Tomorrow a restrained comment about national Health Care…
Back in 2004, as the tallies were being counted, a U.S. News & World Report writer refered to a Gallup poll and an older quote from a long ago, previous election I found interesting. As we enter—way too early—into the general election season with two presumptive nominees from our two major parties, I thought posting them here was very appropriate.
“In a Gallup Poll released last week, respondents were asked whether George W. Bush was a uniter or divider. The result 48 percent said he was a uniter, and 48 percent said he was a divider. Think about it.”
“...take comfort in the immortal words of Adlai Stevenson, who said, ‘In America, anyone can become president. It’s one of the risks you take.’”
Both quotes from a
U.S. News & World Report essay by Roger Simon, “The Final Hours” (November 8, 2004).
Greg K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God
. InterVarsity Press (July 2004).
Days before I graduated from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Dr. Greg Beale, my student advisor and my professor of New Testament said, “Chip, you have a good grasp of theological and hermeneutical frameworks for understanding Scripture, I encourage you, now, to read authors who do the work of exegesis. Read, not how to do exegesis, but authors that do exegesis of texts.” I have sought to do that for the last twenty-two years, whether I was in fulltime vocational ministry or in secular employment for personal study. Beale’s book, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, is a expert and great example of the work of exegesis, and as well, how such exegesis works into a Biblical Theology. This book is worth the read simply for the methodology it presents. The Temple and the Church’s Mission is also a needed work on the nature of the Church, indeed a Biblical Theology of “Church” as well. Beale is a master exegete and harnesses that process to develop a Biblical Theology of God’s ultimate plan in creating the Garden of Eden, the Temple, Jerusalem, and the Church. He makes the difficult exegetical process readable so the average pastor can wade through the material. His method should be imitated. As a Biblical Theology, The Temple and the Church’s Mission utilizes the exegetical method to trace the progressive revelation from the Old Testament to the New and shows the implications on the nature of the Christian life and of the Church. Beale’s conclusions should inform us regarding God’s ultimate purpose, role, and mission of His Church. This book has an impact on the Christian community’s view of its mission and purpose, and will lead to a wide range of practical considerations for the wise pastor and wise church leader. The volume is for, obviously, serious students of the word and of Christian theology, but more so for pastors who need to think biblical about the church, the purpose of Christian outreach, and I would add, how the Christian worldview and belief should influence the world (read, local communities) around us. If I started another “Top Ten” list of books that have been most influential in my life, this would make that list.
Greg Beale was my professor at
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in So. Hamilton, MA. He now teaches at
Wheaton Graduate School in Illinois. I have also made comments about
The Temple and the Church’s Mission in a previous thread on
“Staying in the Garden.”
I asked my daughter to come along with me to pick out a father’s Day card. It took fifty years to do this, and I wasn’t sure I could figure out the best one all by my self. I told her, “They don’t make Father’s Day cards for this.” I meant, they don’t make “Happy Father’s Day” cards for sons to give their dad who hasn’t been around for 50 years and finally met him. But I figured I’d find something for this very special occasion. But even the clerk couldn’t come up with one. We found a few blank-on-the-inside cards, but the pictures were sappy. I certainly didn’t want sappy. Then my daughter found a nice one—a wooded picture on the outside and a nice “message on the inside.” But it was a tri-fold and the inside-inside page was not fitting the occasion. The good thing, the inside-inside page was loose…so I paid for it, went home, and carefully lifted the page off. And typed my own…and glue-sticked it on in place of the original. Here’s what I said after 50 years…
Dad,
They don’t make this type of Father’s Day card, but this is a card, nonetheless, that waited almost 50 years to be given. In God’s good grace He saw fit to bring us back together after all these years and miles of separation. I am so glad He did.
So on this Father’s Day, 2008, I wish you the best. I wish you forty-eight Happy Father’s Days all in one. May this day bring you joy, knowing that your son is very glad to know you and thinks kind thoughts, good wishes, and tells everyone about you.
Happy
Father’s Day
“The commission to have dominion (Gen 1:26-28), first expressed through Adam’s role in Eden, is expressed in Israel’s temple that also represented God’s cosmic rule” (Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 116)
“They were to be mediators in spreading the light of God’s tabernacle presence to the rest of the dark world” (Beale, 117)
“There are indications elsewhere in the Old Testament, which are developed later by Jewish commentaries, that Eden and the temple signified a divine mandate to enlarge the boundaries of the temple until they formed the borders around the whole earth” (Beale, 123).
“…the boundaries of the Eden garden-sanctuary and of Israel’s temples were meant to be extended to encircle the entire world” (Beale, 123).
In my previous post of this two-part thread on “Staying in the Garden” I indicated that staying in the Garden was “a bad move” for Adam, Eve, and their seed. Beale continues his exposition throughout his book, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, to explain that the representatives of the Garden of Eden, and later Israel as a whole, were to expand the borders of the Garden, and later the boundaries of Israel, to encompass the hostile, waste places of the ungodly world “outside” the Garden (and outside of Israel). My interest here is how this impacts our understanding of evangelism and the task of evangelism through the local church. In light of my noted implications from the previous post (1 and 2), I suggest we should reconsider the nature, content, and potential activities that constitute evangelism:
1. The nature of evangelism: This is not complicated. Evangelism must be related to the rule and reign of God. And this is not a far stretch, for we already know two things: 1) In the Old Testament we have the concept of the “runner” returning with the “good news” that “our God reigns, such as in Isaiah 52:7:
How lovely on the mountains
Are the feet of him who brings good news,
Who announces peace
And brings good news of happiness,
Who announces salvation,
And says to Zion, “Your God reigns!”
And, 2) we know from the Gospels themselves that the Gospel is dynamically related to the Kingdom of God and ought not to be separated from any definition or understanding of evangelism. We hear especially in Mark’s introduction,
“Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel’” (Mark 1:14-15).
And Matthew who actually links the two together:
“Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness” (Matthew 9:35; cf. 4:23; 24:14; Luke 16:16).
Evangelism is related to the rule and reign of God and its increase, which places evangelism squarely within the antecedent biblical theology of the Garden of Eden. Evangelism is about moving into the hostile, ungodly world, extending God’s reign and rule over the waste places, that is the ungodly humanity and social structures “outside” the church—i.e., expanding God’s kingship.
2. The content evangelism: Simply, most Christians understand the content of evangelism to be “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life,” “Jesus saves,” or the more spiritually sounding “Jesus died for your sins, repent and believe this.” For most it is verbal communication of the salvific acts of Jesus in forms of proclamation. Although certainly a part of evangelism, but limited. Later in Beale’s book he demonstrates that Eden-like language is used of evil, anti-Yahweh kingdoms and empires. Here he explains that such Garden of Eden language is used ironically, namely these kingdoms and empires seek to extend their own reign. Furthermore the Garden language is used to boast, show off the status, pomp, and prestige of the king of that empire, not to show submission to Yahweh. In fact, Beale points out that unbelieving empires “plant gardens to ‘enjoy the aesthetic without the ethic’” and they develop communities ‘to seek a community without a covenant’” (referring to Gage’s comments in his book, Gospel According to Genesis, pp 60-61). Here, we learn that evangelism is more than simply the “Roman Road” or the a “fourfold” Gospel tract. The content of evangelism ought to be raised to the level of the kingdom, which implies extending God’s word (His reign and righteousness) into all aspect of life, into socio-economic structures and among all types of relationships.
3. The potential activities of evangelism: Agreed that evangelism can be proclaiming “about” Jesus and “about” His kingdom, but it ought to be far more in light of the Garden-mission and the Gospel’s dynamic relationship to God’s Kingdom. It seems that any action or activities that extends God’s right to rule is evangelism—it is the Good News that “Our God Reigns.” Evangelism is the intentional activities of the community of faith to extend God’s Word (His righteous reign) into all aspects of life, including socio-economic relationships as well as family life and the lives of individuals.
See the first post of this two part thread,
Staying in the garden—bad move (Wasted Evangelism) (1 of 2)
“You don’t have to know a lot of things for your life to make a lasting difference in the world. But you do have to know the few things that matter and then be willing to live for them and die for them.” ~John Piper, Don’t Waste Your Life