Idolatrous worship is not solely related to the cultus of Israel (in church language, Sunday morning worship with all the trappings), but to Israel’s socioeconomic relationships as well. In Zech 7 we hear that the requests of the representatives are framed within the context of spirituality, that is of fasting, weeping, and mourning. But the context doesn’t drive us to their appointed times of worship, but to covenant-keeping, and in particular those covenant land-laws associated with the economically vulnerable:
Thus has the LORD of hosts said, “Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother; and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another” (Zech 7:9-10).
This surely reflects the original stipulations spelt out for Israel as God lead them out of Egypt through the desert and into the land of promise (Exodus 22-23; cf. Deuteronomy 15 and 24). What is interesting is that the Zechariah passage follows the pattern of the Exodus stipulations, namely the juxtaposition of the warnings against idolatry and the (immediate) context of the landed Israelites to the landless, economically vulnerable:
“He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed. You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. (Exodus 22:20-22).
In fact the pattern is further developed in that as landed Israelites refuse the cries of the economically vulnerable, God would not listen to them:
“And just as He called and they would not listen, so they called and I would not listen,” says the LORD of hosts (Zech 7:13; cf. Exodus 22:23).
We need to take seriously the persistence of the prophets to draw Israel (and us) back to the original covenant-keeping stipulations, and especially the judgments on idolatry and the mistreatment of the economically vulnerable or simply not fulfilling of the covenant stipulations related to the economically vulnerable. Idolatry, as already mentioned, is not solely related to the cultus or formal worship of Israel. Idolatrous behavior can be the way in which one conducts themselves socially and economically. Vain spirituality is when one shows oneself in worship and displays piety but refuses to apply the social and economic expectations of God’s laws.
In the next post I will conclude with
the prosperity of their city…
Vain worship or phony spirituality is actually a form of idolatry itself, for such worship, in fact, does not place God at the center, but the worshipper, in that we put on an act of worship or offer phony spirituality in order to make God accept us and do something for us. In this sense we seek to control God by our actions rather than respond to God with actions appropriate to the obedience reflected by His kingdom and laws. This leads me to the issue of idolatry and poverty, and later, in another post, the prosperity of the city.
The hardness of our hearts, our idolatry
In verses 11-12 we can see clearly that the people of Israel had broken the first commandment:
“But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing. They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts.”
Throughout the Old Testament imagery “stubborn” body parts references back to the false worship of the golden calf in Exodus:
Now when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people assembled about Aaron and said to him, “Come, make us a god who will go before us; as for this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” Aaron said to them, “Tear off the gold rings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” Then all the people tore off the gold rings which were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. He took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool and made it into a molten calf; and they said, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” Now when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the LORD.” So the next day they rose early and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play. Then the LORD spoke to Moses, “Go down at once, for your people, whom you brought up from the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. They have quickly turned aside from the way which I commanded them. They have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshiped it and have sacrificed to it and said, ‘This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt!’” The LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, they are an obstinate people. Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation” (32:1-10).
The word obstinate (Zech 7:9) puts a body-part imagery before the reader/listener. The NIV literalizes the imagery by translating it a stiff-necked people as do most other translations. This is the typical way the worshippers of the “golden calf” are referenced (Ex 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt 9:6, 13; 10:16; 31:27). In other OT texts the image of “stiff-necked” or stubborn is used to depict vain worshippers of God (Isa 48:4-8; 2 Kings 17:14; 2 Chron 36:13; Jer 19:15; cf. Neh 9:16-17; Jer 7:26; 17:23). Later in the history of Israel we hear
Since Israel is stubborn
Like a stubborn heifer,
Can the LORD now pasture them
Like a lamb in a large field? (Hosea 4:16).
This is a clear reference back to the Exodus golden calf episode used to describe and judge the vain spirituality and phony worship of Israel. Body part language is often used to highlight the idolatry and idolatrous practices performed by people. The image is likened unto a stubborn calf or cow (the original reference of the “golden calf” of the exodus) that will not move in the direction the farmer or herder desires. The imagery highlights two things: 1) A reference back to the covenant keeping expectations and covenant breaking in the book of Exodus and 2) the connotation that the people cannot or will not hear. A very persistent problem associated with idolatry as reflected in the Zechariah 7 passage as they refused to pay attention…and stopped their ears from hearing (v 11). So just as He called and they would not listen (v 12a), Yahweh would not listen when they called (12b).
But idolatrous worship is not solely related to the cultus of Israel (in church language, Sunday morning worship with all the trappings), but to Israel’s socioeconomic relationships…to be continued in the next post…
In the fourth year of King Darius, the word of the LORD came to Zechariah on the fourth day of the ninth month, which is Chislev. Now the town of Bethel had sent Sharezer and Regemmelech and their men to seek the favor of the LORD, speaking to the priests who belong to the house of the LORD of hosts, and to the prophets, saying, “Shall I weep in the fifth month and abstain, as I have done these many years?”
Then the word of the LORD of hosts came to me, saying, “Say to all the people of the land and to the priests, ‘When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months these seventy years, was it actually for Me that you fasted? When you eat and drink, do you not eat for yourselves and do you not drink for yourselves? Are not these the words which the LORD proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and prosperous along with its cities around it, and the Negev and the foothills were inhabited?’”
Then the word of the LORD came to Zechariah saying, “Thus has the LORD of hosts said, ‘Dispense true justice and practice kindness and compassion each to his brother; and do not oppress the widow or the orphan, the stranger or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another.’ But they refused to pay attention and turned a stubborn shoulder and stopped their ears from hearing. They made their hearts like flint so that they could not hear the law and the words which the LORD of hosts had sent by His Spirit through the former prophets; therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts. And just as He called and they would not listen, so they called and I would not listen, says the LORD of hosts; but I scattered them with a storm wind among all the nations whom they have not known. Thus the land is desolated behind them so that no one went back and forth, for they made the pleasant land desolate.”
The juxtaposition of idolatry and the issues of poverty find themselves scattered in numerous places throughout the Old Testament (such as but not limited to Ex 22-23; Lev 19, 23; Dt 15, 24; Isa 1-6, 10; Jer 4-8, 22; Ez 16-18, 22; Amos 4, Zech 7, Hos 14). In fact, as I have discussed at other times, even the Gospel is defined, or better, nuanced through this idolatry-poverty language as we can see in Mark 1-4. This Gospel use of the juxtaposition can be seen in how the Isaiah 1-6 context is utilized to define the Gospel, to explain the present activity of the Kingdom of God, and elucidate the work of spreading the Gospel. (See my posts on Evangelism and Social Action or for a pdf copy.) This juxtaposition of idolatry and the issues of poverty are very clearly expressed in the passage cited above, Zechariah 7. What is most interesting from this passage is the relationship of poverty to the spirituality (or seeming spirituality or vain spirituality) of the people of God, the hardness of the people’s hearts (i.e., their idolatry), and the prosperity of their city. Over the next few posts, I’d like to engage this text as it relates to the issues of false spirituality, idolatry, and poverty.
First vain worship
Representatives of the town of Bethel were dispatched to speak to the temple leadership, the priests and prophets (vv 2-3), in order to seek the favor of the LORD (v 2). They framed their inquiry in spiritual language, which was to boast, that is position themselves before God in a favorable way, “Shall I weep in the fifth month and abstain, as I have done these many years?” This vain spirituality was to accomplish two things: 1) establish the people as righteous and spiritual and 2) to manipulate the God of Israel to grant favor to them. But the word of the LORD of hosts ( vv 5-6) came to them with direct disregard of this vain status of worship and self-righteousness.
“When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh months these seventy years, was it actually for Me that you fasted? When you eat and drink, do you not eat for yourselves and do you not drink for yourselves?”
Their request was not only phony, their actual “fasting” and “mourning” during the time of captivity was self-centered and self-serving. Similarly in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus reaches back to the vain worship of the Israelites (Isaiah 29) to direct light on behavior that looked righteous but was in fact only the motions to look right:
And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:7-8, quoting Isaiah 29:13).
This trait to act spiritual is common among the community of faith. In Isa 1:10-15 we hear that God hates the phony, ritual worship of His people, for it is separated from true righteous living. And the oft quoted Mic 6:8 where God requires His people to walk in justice is contexted within those who worship for show. There is a tendency among us to neglect the commandments of God in favor of traditions of men. And lest we who offer vain worship to God think we hold to fundamentals or a pure gospel, or claim a historic evangelical faith, we need to examine what is juxtaposed to this vain expression of spirituality.
Next
The hardness of our hearts; our idolatry
“For every civilization, for every period of history, it is true to say, ‘show me what kind of gods you have, and I will tell you what kind of humanity you possess.’” ~Emil Brunner, Man in Revolt (1939)
If I were an alien—from say a remote planet or even remote island on the planet, let alone just a foreigner from a non-US territory—and I happened to stray a shore, passing very unfamiliar structures and signs, and then happening upon a TV somewhere-someplace in America, and being captivated by what I would later come to know as the Senate hearings on Surpreme court nominations …what would I have seen? What would I have come to know about life in America? What would I come away with that is important to Americans—well at least important to the questioning Senators? I would surmise that American society is built on whether a female of the American species could kill their unborn or not. One of the inquisitors stating, “…women all over America have come to depend on” the right to unrestricted abortion. No wonder Abortion Rights are the most important reason to vote against a “conservative” Supreme Court nominee and to support a “liberal” one. Parable aside, I also find it funny, ironic, and constitutionally selective when I hear the same anti-life politicians say that the Second Amendment (right to bear arms) is a static, militia oriented, proscription that can’t be applied to the individuals as a right to own a gun, but yet find a flexible—“the founders couldn’t have known, but made a flexible, fluid, living”—constitutional right to privacy to cover a woman’s right to NOT continuing bearing a child that she has inside of her womb. When the brave founding father, facing certain death for his stand against England’s tyranny shouted for all American History to hear, “Give me liberty, or give me death,” I don’t think he meant, as Ann Coulter once wrote, that the modern cry for a faithful understanding of the fight for freedom is captured in “Give me liberty or give me the right to have unprotected sex with men I don’t want to have a child with.” I didn’t realize that the American experiment is a course in defining personhood backwards…I thought we made great gains forward in the experiment on this matter…we made gains in determining that we ought not to have slaves and that people of color (from all different races and ethnic lineage) are indeed full persons will inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Now we have Senator’s wanting a selective “living constitution” which diminishes the personhood of the unborn “fetus” and believes passionately (because that’s where their financial support comes from) that in order to have true liberty one must be free to destroy the life, if one chooses, that is the most innocent and of need of the most protection. Give me liberty or deny me the right to kill the unborn. Sad. Very sad.
Vengeance (ven’jəns) noun
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth; a fair, satisfying and rapid way to a sightless, toothless world.
Mercy (mer’sē) noun
The infrequent art of turning thumbs up on an old antagonist at the end of one’s rapier ~Calvin Miller, The Singer
There is a reasonable progression to the work of the preacher or the one who stands in the place of God and acts as His voice to others. This process is often executed poorly. First there is study, applying good exegesis and sound biblical theological reflection to a text or passage of Scripture. Second, what is the significance of the meaning of the text—first for the original audience and the text’s place in biblical redemptive history, and then second, the significance of the meaning of the text to the current place in redemptive history. And finally, how that up-to-date significance applies to those hearing the preaching of the text. And it seems there needs to be a fair and reasonable correspondence all along the way.
Meaning | Significance | Application
The case against Israel, as revealed and pronounced in Ezekiel 22, centers on covenantal unfaithfulness, and in particular how such unfaithfulness effects the city (in this case the city of Jerusalem). Thus when God searches for “a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap” before Him “for the land” (Ez 22:30), He is looking for those who would restore righteousness and justice in the land. The reference to building up the wall is significant, for the Wall of a City refers to the way in which a city is protected and by inference the place where city leaders (i.e., the state or seat of government) meet to make decisions and executive actions on behalf of the city.
It is of no surprise that Ezekiel identifies the leadership of the land as culpable, the ones who bear responsibility for allowing and contributing to the defilement, the disregard of God’s socio-economic principles (i.e., the covenant stipulations for land-use and neighborliness).
“There is a conspiracy of her prophets in her midst like a roaring lion tearing the prey They have devoured lives; they have taken treasure and precious things; they have made many widows in the midst of her. Her priests have done violence to My law and have profaned My holy things; they have made no distinction between the holy and the profane, and they have not taught the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they hide their eyes from My sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. Her princes within her are like wolves tearing the prey, by shedding blood and destroying lives in order to get dishonest gain. Her prophets have smeared whitewash for them, seeing false visions and divining lies for them, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD,’ when the LORD has not spoken” (Ezekiel 22:25-28).
The ways and means of the leadership results in how people act
in the land, for we finally hear
“The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice” (v 29).
The one who stands in the gap seeks to rebuild the wall, that is to promote justice in the land. This is what God seeks. To spiritualize the text to mean a call for praying might sound Christian, but does not apply the text. Such spiritualizing of the text might make the preacher and Christians look spiritual and sound godly, but it does not call the people (first Christians and then the leaders and people of the land) to repent and build the wall, that is to seek ways to apply God’s righteousness and means of justice in the land.
For God there is a dynamic relationship between the way the poor are treated and the overall protection and prosperity of the city. God seeks those who would stand in the gap, at the broken and torn-down places in society where the people, especially the economically vulnerable, are unprotected, the places where the poor and needy and alien/stranger are wronged and treated without justice. God seeks those who would (re)build the wall at the places where the city is left vulnerable, especially in maintaining the ways and means of righteousness and justice.
“I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one” (Ezekiel 22:30).
Who can argue with a preacher calling on Christians to step up to prayer before God? Once that is called for, frankly it seems no one cares what the preacher’s text actually says or means. And when, in our America, preachers cry out for prayer warriors to step up into the gap of prayerlessness and beseech God to prevent the destruction of the country that gives us so much freedom, comfort, and, dare I say, wealth, who will listen to someone who says, “But that’s not what the text says. That is not what God is calling for from the text?” Very few Christians it seems. They already have heard what they want and they have already been taught not to care what the text says as long as the preacher sounds spiritual and preaches the Gospel and makes strong references to a dedicated, prayerful, sanctified Christian life. Now that’s preaching! Yes, even if that’s not what the text the preacher is using actually says.
Although a good thing for sure and even needed, Ezekiel 22 is not calling for prayer warriors to stand in the gap for America or your city or your hometown. So what is God calling for in this text? The first clue is actually in the verse itself:
“I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land” (v 30a).
In order to connect application to the meaning of this passage of Scripture, we need to find out what’s wrong with the land that God intends, through judgment, to destroy. What does God seek for the one who stands in the gap to do?
Well, from the text itself we hear that Jerusalem is a “bloody city” (v 1) and that it produces “idols” (v 3). We know from verse 4 that it is the production and following of idols that the land is defiled. It seems the land (i.e., the people), through the “rulers of Israel” (v 6) have broken many of the social-related commandments and laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy. In fact, besides the obvious breaking and misuse of the Sabbath and worship rites, as well as dishonoring parents, there are a number of economic references (e.g., the taking of interest and profit, injuring neighbors through oppression, v 12; dishonest gain, v 13; along with production and manufacturing that is oppressive, v 22, etc.). What is noteworthy is that in the midst of the defiled and immoral behavior that Ezekiel alludes are references to the mistreatment of the economically vulnerable:
“The alien they have oppressed in your midst; the fatherless and the widow they have wronged in you” (v 7b).
“…they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice” (v 29).
And it is through this misplaced and idol-produced economic approach to community life that has done violence to the economically vulnerable and have devoured lives and made many widows in the midst of her (v 25). And, as well, in direct opposition to Mosaic stipulations in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, the alien/stranger in their midst has been abused and oppressed (v 29). It is likely that even the references to robbery may have more to do with withholding provisions for basic needs (sufficient for daily life) to the economically vulnerable or depriving people of their appropriate status as sharers of the land rather than a reference to thieves simply breaking into to homes and stealing.
The Ezekiel 22 passage draws our attention back to covenantal faithfulness and obedience to the ten-words (i.e., the Decalogue), and in particular the stipulations and land-codes related to the economically vulnerable living in the land. We hear from the Book of the Covenant in the Exodus story:
“You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless. If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, you are not to act as a creditor to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets, for that is his only covering; it is his cloak for his body. What else shall he sleep in? And it shall come about that when he cries out to Me, I will hear him, for I am gracious” (Exodus 22:21-27).
And then later on the shores of the promised land, Israel reviews what it means to living as a landed people where in the land there are economically vulnerable landless brethren:
“If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks. Beware that there is no base thought in your heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of remission, is near,’ and your eye is hostile toward your poor brother, and you give him nothing; then he may cry to the LORD against you, and it will be a sin in you. You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in all your undertakings. For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.’” (Deuteronomy 15:11).
“You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow’s garment in pledge (Deuteronomy 24:17).
Ezekiel 22 is a formal judgment upon those (i.e., the landed) who have not fulfilled thier responsibilities toward the landless. Whatever God is seeking in His search for someone “to stand in the gap” has more to do with bringing about righteousness in the land and justice toward the economically vulnerable than with developing a quiet-time or showing up at mid-week prayer meetings—or sounding spiritual in a sermon or looking spiritual because you pray a lot.
“I searched for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand in the gap before Me for the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one. Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads,” declares the Lord GOD” (Ezekiel 22:30-31).
Have you ever had to repent of poor interpretations? Have you ever had to admit your once held-so-dearly interpretation of a text was absolutely wrong? I have—way too many times. Mostly where I have had to humble myself has been when I spiritualized a text because the interpretation sounded, well, spiritual and important and would sound like I had some insight into its meaning and application. Many times such spiritualizing of a text was done because it aligned with my deeper-life roots and my commitment to a very individualized Christianity and form of discipleship. Rarely have I had to retract an interpretation that has been built on good exegesis and sound biblical theological thinking.
Over the years I have found that I can rely on exegesis to sustain my interpretations of the Bible and its texts. As well, I can readily see that texts I have spiritualized, disregarding their context and original meaning, have been found wanting and in need of being retracted—and hopefully replaced with sound interpretation. One text that has hit me pretty hard recently where I have had to admit that I was wrong and have offered a poor interpretation in the past is found in the passage above, Ezekiel 22:30-31.
My understanding of this text over the years was a very spiritualized and popular interpretation of Ezekiel’s judgment on Israel and in particular its leadership (priests, v 26; princes, v 27; prophets, v 28). What I had understood was that Ezekiel was explaining God’s case against Israelite leadership because they had forsaken their spiritual leadership and had led Israel to abandon their commitment to Yahweh their God. In a sense, this was correct and is indeed the case in Ezekiel 22, however I turned the words into a case against Israel’s lack of prayer and godliness. Thus the search for someone to build the wall and stand in the gap was spiritualized to mean God searched for someone to step up and lead His people in prayer, standing in the gap between man and God, between the Church and God, between the unsaved and God.
The danger in spiritualizing a text is two-fold: 1) We don’t apply sound exegetical skills and proper contextual considerations to form our interpretation and 2) many preachers (myself included) want to sound spiritual, heavenly-minded to our peers and to those who listen. Spiritualized interpretations allow the preacher to say whatever he or she wants and claim that it’s from the Bible. The words don’t mean what the original author meant—the words mean what the preacher wants them to mean. This is more like a Humpty Dumpty interpretative method than a sound exegesis of an author’s words. (“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”) Spiritualizing the Biblical text is more about the preacher than about the actual word from God through which the texts seeks to give us. Although this is sermonic and makes the preacher—which in this case was me as well—sound spiritual (and how could anyway argue against such an interpretation that calls people to prayer!), the fact of the matter is that the interpretation and its application disregarded both the text and the proper repentance needed to repair what was broken. Consequently, the Church misses God’s Word in the end.
Over the next two posts I will retract my spiritualized interpretation, offer a more, contextual one which is more faithful to the text and to what actually is the case against the Israelite leadership, and finally some suggestions at how we can apply Ezekiel’s words to us today.
“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden” (Matthew 5:14).
Although time for a detailed and indepth exegesis of Matthew 5:14 is unavailable to me, at a recent service I heard the preacher refer to this particular text—in fact made a strong point for us to read along with him—provoking me to rethink something about this text. The preacher’s words were a summary of his message and turning to this text made comments about the light and the city that gave me pause. He referred to the light-glow of the city that is warm and inviting, something that calls us to forsake our comfortable and older ways for the new and warm and caring light of the city so that we, too, may be that city light. Poetical. Sure. Nice words. Of course. Perhaps even inviting. But not actually grounded in either the text or the imagery Jesus is utilizing. The imagery he drew from the words of Matthew fit his intended meaning and sermonic point--not the text’s (or matthew’s).
First, when Jesus says in Matthew 5 we (the Christian community) are the “light of the world,” whatever it means it also includes its juxtaposed meaning to that “city set on a hill.” So what kind of light are we? Well, we are city-light. Sounds simple and actually a fair reading of the text here.
Second, what is that city on a hill? For sure the city is Jerusalem, for how could any good Israelite not hear the words and think of the city that is indeed set on a hill right there in their experience and geography—Jerusalem. Of course there is the Old Testament connotation that Isaiah sets forth that God intended to restore His people so that they would be a “light to the nations” (Isaiah 49:6). So there is certainly a missional character to this city imagery, something active and not passive. But what is a city? Certainly the reference is not to a village or a suburban track outside the city-limits. The Christian community (and please, not an individualistic interpretation where each Christian is a city) is a light reflected as a city. The hustler and bussel of commerce and active streets, often messy and seemingly unorganized, where people flow in and out to find their needs and sustenance met. Certainly there is the imagery of protection—for cities were walled at that time. In fact it was the wealth of the city and the strength of the city that offered protection to the surrounding metropolitan areas. Instead, now we have those who escape the city and rob the city of its human capital and sustaining resources—in the suburbs.
So I found it ironic that we, at that service and mostly suburbanites, were being called to total commitment to the Lordship of Christ, but nothing was mentioned of repentance of a suburban life in exchange for one characterized by the “light of the city.” You are the light of the world, a suburban escape from the city which is set off, isolated from the city. It would be worth thinking about, namely how those living in the suburbs hear this text, and certainly how those affected by “affluenza” (i.e., affluence) respond to Jesus’ call to be a city set on a hill. How do those who are a Christian community set outside the city be a biblical city-light to the world?
“…contrary to what is commonly argued, our problem in the public square is not ‘religious totalitarianism,’ and the solution is not a ‘multilingual relativism’ that bans all absolute and exclusive claims. In a day of exploding diversity, the real question is: how do we live with our deepest differences when many of those differences are absolute, including those of secularism? This question…is vital for the future of democracy…raising it properly frees us from the distortions of the current public debate” ~Os Guinness in Unspeakable: Facing Up to Evil in an Age of Genocide and Terror
Woody Allen once quipped, “It’s not that I am afraid to die. I just don’t want to be there when it happens.” Often Christians can take a similar attitude toward spiritual growth. “It’s not that I am afraid of spiritual growth,” they say. “I just don’t want to be there when it happens.”
H.G. Wells once called Buddhism the “best religion.” But he admitted it could only flourish in a warm climate. Wells was not poking fun at Buddhism. He was commenting on Westerners’ preference for comfort. Our modern version of Christianity is also unfavorably disposed toward discomfort. But any theme that gets as much space in the Scripture as suffering does should have our careful, reverent attention.
Suffering is no more avoidable than breathing. But let’s face it. Today we view life through the lenses of comfort, personal rights, and material affluence. Our culture is collapsing under the weight of a thousand rights and needs. Meanwhile, that same weight has become a millstone around the neck of Christian spirituality, church-life, and discipleship.
Our churches are filled with disappointed, disillusioned Christians. Many float from church to church, from one self help book to another, from one get healed quick guru to another. They search for the “power” that will release their pain and unleash their happiness. The problem is not the gospel or the power of God’s Word. The problem is our preference for comfort. (Well, at least it is my problem!)
It seems that Christians, today, are more apt to shrink spiritually than to grow. In his book, New Rules, Daniel Yankelovich observes:
You are not the sum total of your desires. You do not consist of an aggregate of needs, and your inner growth is not a matter of fulfilling all your potentials. By concentrating day and night on your feelings, potentials, needs, wants and desires, and by learning to assert them more freely, you do not become a freer, more spontaneous, more creative self; you become a narrower, more self centered, more isolated one. You do not grow, you shrink.
Much of our problem rests in our inability to reconcile our culture’s call to comfort with the biblical texts calling us to suffer. And that’s the scandal of contemporary Christian life.
We have a generation of Christians who cannot say with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, “Praise God for this prison.” They cannot identify with Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s conviction, “When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die.” They cannot understand the depths of A.W. Tozer’s comment, “It is doubtful whether God can bless a man greatly until He has hurt him deeply.” The Bible, I fear, is much closer to Solzhenitsyn, Bonhoeffer and Tozer than we like to think.
We have a Christianity and a church-life that is designed to help the believer to be comfortable with himself or herself, and to help their faith to fit nicely in our democracy. There is a temptation to accommodate ourselves with the status quo, to identify with our democracy. Don’t get me wrong, I love our form of government. I am only (beginning) to question whether my conflicts (my perchant for avoiding suffering), my uneasiness with how my faith works in our democracy is a result of wanting to feel more comfortable in western, American modernity. I fear we dislike feeling alienated from our surrounding culture, so we choose a faith that reflects more our contemporary, democratic values rather than following the Way of the suffering Messiah, the way of the cross.
© Chip M. Anderson
Words’nTone
Adapted from my book, Destroying Our Private Cities, Building Our Spiritual Life
, a lay-commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. For more information on the Book and a free-downloadable chapter, click here.