Words'nTone

The tension between being a citizen of this great county, the US of A, and being citizens of God’s kingdom is real.  Or, it should be.  In fact, I think there should be many sleepless nights and burden filled days for American Christians.  I do love being an American.  I enjoy the benefits that our form of government and the way our economic system works, and I appreciate the responsibilities that come with the role of citizen.  I served in the Air Force, a volunteer, and I even served on the local Town Committee for the Republican Party (now, don’t go pigeon holing me—make sure you read a lot of this blog before making me a stereo-type conservative).  And like Daniel and his three friends, I hope I contribute to my country’s welfare.  But also like these four young men, I hope I know where to draw the line between what is acceptable in the emperor’s kingdom (i.e., the state) and what is pleasing as a member of God’s Kingdom.  For any Christian, this is a tough task.  Or, if should be—for too many, there is no tension at all.

Sometimes making this distinction and living it out can lead to a lion’s den and a fiery furnace (as in Daniel’s story).  I hope when it is my turn, I live up to my convictions.  In July, Americans get all patriotic—even Christians.  Around the 4th many churches include such patriotism as a part of its worship, including the singing of the Battle Hymn of the Republic, the Star Spangled Banner, O Beautiful, and God Bless the USA, and in many churches, replacing the Apostle’s Creed with the Pledge of Allegiance.  The Red, White, and Blue becomes the center of many American churches during this month.  I have a problem with this—you should too!  The worship service is to be characterized in such a way to reflect God’s throne and our allegiance to His Kingdom.  Sermons—which ought to be a reflection of God’s Word, not American religiosity or civil religion—ought to be the place we learn about this tension and how to deal with it.  In some countries and some places in history such kingdom-centered worship led to a lion’s den and a fiery furnace.  The New Testament itself, especially books like Galatians and Revelation directly argue against aligning our church-life and Christian experience with the State, or a race, or an ethnic group.  The worship of a Christian Church should not promote patriotism at any time, even if it’s only for the 4th of July; but, should celebrate that the church—no matter what country its adherents belong or living in—is a reflection of the eternal worship found in the consummation and in the nature of the Gospel itself.  When we portray the Gospel as aligned in any way with a State or culture, we should listen seriously to what Paul said in Galatians 1:8-9:

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Better yet, we should make sure that our worship reflects God’s Kingdom rule as Daniel portrayed it in Daniel 7:13-14:

“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.  He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

I only pray, despite whatever harm or result of my allegiance to God’s Kingdom comes my way, I can say as the three who faced the fire,

“O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter.  If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king.  But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up” (Daniel 3:16-18).

We owe it to the martyrs of old and even those facing the same throughout the world today, who didn’t and doesn’t allow their faith to be a reflection of their civic duties and discovered as a result that their worship was welcomed by the face of lions and the flames of fire.  We owe it to the truth of the Gospel.  Sometimes, even when it seems unpatriotic, as Christians and citizens of the kingdom of God, we need to know where that line is.  I need to know where that line is…daily.

PS In a few following posts I’d like to reflect on that line a little…

I was cautious even to know what to call this post. Nothing unfair. My goals in this blog doesn’t include bashing other religions or provoking unnecessary tension between rival religious groups. But I was intrigued and a bit surprised at the mention of African Christians in a recent NYPost opinion column. Over the years, I have read in numerous books and articles on the growth of the African Christian church, often mentioining that Christians and church plants outpace every other religious group and sect in Africa. Usually the comparison is made to the pace of church planting in America vs. the church planting in Africa—Africa wins out every time. But the facts of African Christianity never seem to make it into the main stream press or the “evening news.” I have read articles by respected journalists on African religions, but without one word on the massive church growth among Christian denominations all throughout the continent. And then there it was in a recent print news commentary I read about the growing tenision between African Christians and radical Islamist (NYPost 7/18/10).

Ralph Peters, the columnists, writes: “The Islamist have it wrong: Islam isn’t the world’s fastest-growing religion. By birth numbers and convert tallies, it’s Christianity.” Now of course I don’t believe someone is a Christian by birth (it must be by choice and allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour) and I can’t say what’s in the heart of Mr. Peters, but I take “by birth count” to mean Christian families giving birth to children being raised in a Christian home. Nonetheless, the mention of Christianity in this way in a nationally recognize news outlet was startling to me. Perhaps it’s only the historical value and an attempt at being fair, Peters seems to be contrasting the militant raise of extreme Islam and the, at present, raise of peaceful, joyful Christianity in a country—Africa—usually know for tribal religion and the spread of Islam.

Peters’ writes about the violence and vengeful attacks on African Christians. But that didn’t surprise me. It was the other outcome related observations that stunned me—stunned because it was in the main stream press. He contrasted the “backward and listless” Muslim community, one that is “[c]ondemned to poverty by poor educations.” But, Peters writes, “Christianity blazed” [his emphasis]. He continues, “Mega-churches co’t contain all those who’d accepted Jesus as their Saviour: City parks were packed with ecstatic worshippers every Sunday.” Peters point out that certainly Muslims are converting (being baptized) in Islam, but Christians are not converting to Islam. “Wahhabi Islam’s rejection of joy just does’t speak to Africans—who even in misfortune seem incomparably alive.” In Christianity, the Islamist extremists confront their potential converts with a death-cult, not a faith, “while the vibrant Christianity of Africa pulses with life.”

The second, Peters makes a haunting observation: “Of course, a Christian crusade in response to jihad would be just fine with many Saudis and Gulf Arabs. They don’t care about the suffering of inividual Muslims—only about Islam” [his emphasis]. He references the building of mosques, in particular in places where there are few Muslims (such as “eastern Tennessee”). “Every mosque helps stake a claim for the dar ul-Islam” (that is under the influence of Islam, under the household of Islam) in order to extend its boundaries. Peters doesn’t go into detail on this, but the contrast between Christianity and Islam (especially militant Islam) is made clear by this: namely, while both religions are indeed God-centric, it is Christianity that marks its territory, not by buildings (although one might get that impression by our church-growth fantasies) or forced submission or death, but by loving one’s neighbor. I am reminded that the best apologetic for the Christian faith isn’t a large church congregation or a large building or budget, but the Christian community’s existence for the sake of others.  Again, another reason Christians should be in the forefront on the issues of poverty and social justice.

African Christians hopefully will not be militantly crusading against its militant Islamic neighbors any time soon (which Peters seems to think is drawing to a head). But these faithful Christians in a country known for poverty, oppression, and the ever present tension and reality of clashing with their Islamic neighbors, now, are an example of Christ on the planet. The contrast between Christianity and other religious expressions glares at us through this lens. My observations and the references from Peters are not meant to comment on Islam as much as they are to highlight what it means to be “followers of the Way,” the way of Christ in the world.

No doubt a favorite verse among Christians at this time of year. Usually its present somewhere during the Fourth of July period. I heard it at least once this year. When celebrating our nation’s birth, Christian congregations all over America seem to think these verses are about them:

“If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:13-14)

Just like a few observations. Without stating it too strongly: Where do we get the idea that this verse applies to America? Or, to our part of the country? Or, our church? You know, if God’s church repents here in American (or put in your town’s nanme) and truly seeks after Him, he will heal our land, i.e., America. First, I don’t mind the application “My people” being applied to the Church. This seems to me a perfectly legitimate correspondence. The New Testament makes that leap all the time: Israel of God OT = the Church, the Body of Christ NT. Writers throughout the New Testament often take God’s OT promises to Israel and applies them to the Church. So, to understand this Old Testament command to be applicable to the Church is appropriate. But, applying this verse to America (or any country) seems a mismatch. Let me offer a few quick observations (and I’ll let you go home).

First, the context is the dedication of Solomon’s temple to God—the context is worship and the supremacy of God. Now, some believe (as some of our American forefather’s did) that America is God’s chosen land, a City on a Hill, and American’s are God’s chosen people. This is good for speeches, political and civic, but is an unsustainable reference from a Biblical point of view. The reference to “healing their land” does not correspond to God healing America. Although I’d equally argue (from elsewhere in Scripture) that there is a relationship between God’s blessings on our country and the Church’s (good) influence on American culture; however, I think we misappropriate this verse because we view it through our patriotism and love of country rather than commitment to Christ and our church-life. It seems more responsible to apply 2 Chronicles to the life of the Church than otherwise. Solomon finalizes the building of the temple and offers a prayer of dedication. At that point the Shekinah Glory, that is, God’s presence pours into (fills) the temple (7:1-3). The correspondence is more likely that if God’s people, the church, humble themselves, turn from their wickedness (stop adopting contemporary cultural values, which is the context—read pass the verses in 13-14) and pray and seek after God, then God’s presence and blessing will become evident among them, His church, that is the local community of God. I’d also like to point out God’s evident presence and blessing doesn’t always look and feel victorious and comfortable. I’d say God’s presence was fully on Jesus, nonetheless, and He still went to the cross. So, if God’s people do humble themselves, turn from their wicked ways (its American, cultural adaptations), and pray—God’s redemptive blessings on the church will not necessarily make them comfortable in their American culture, or nor will the “blessings” to be poured out “fix” America so the church can go on happily and with ease.

So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (Exodus 3:8; cf. 3:17; 13:5).

Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way” (Exodus 33:3).

In the previous post, I suggested that if those who cannot, through whatever means or for whatever reasons, cannot benefit from the “milk and honey” of the land, are like those who are lactose intolerant and diabetic in that they cannot enjoy the benefits of the milk and honey. Now, of course I do understand that many people are poor of their own doing. And as well, I point out there are many who are wealthy and affluent who are so not of their own doing—but are so despite who they are as people or what they can and cannot do. And as for sin, first I take it that those who are poor and those who are not poor are of the same, both are sinners. But yes, sin can lead to poverty—as well as can wealth. So let’s stop with that game and move toward seeing that it is a Christian responsibility to assist those who are poor to move out of poverty and stop generational poverty, and as well it is a Christian obligation to addresss the causes of poverty. Now with this all said, I’d like to move to a second idea I have from the book Crashers.

It was the quote that got me going—Land of milk and honey…Bloody lot of good it does if you can’t handle lactose and you’ve diabetes to boot.--but my stream of consciousness kept flowing further in light of the Crashers book. In the reality behind the book I am impressed in how the gathering of experts would be called to act and move toward a crashed airline and would examine the crash, determine its cause or causes, and put things in place to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. I like that analogy.

Wouldn’t it make sense that such a team—or teams—of Christians (and even inviting non-Christian experts as well where needed and appropriate) to descend on areas of poverty and examine the blight and determine the cause or causes, and put things in place to ensure it doesn’t continue (or at least to begin to ameliorate the incidence of poverty)? (Now won’t that be a worthwhile endeavor to fund!)

It is interesting that there is a shift between the first promised move toward the Land flowing with milk and honey at the beginning of the exodus (cf. Exodus 3:8) and the latter part of the story in Exodus 33. In the latter chapters of the book of Exodus, we discover that even the Israelites were idolatrous—not just the Egyptians. This idolatry was a threat, yet they’d still be able to enter the Land flowing with milk and honey (it was a promise), but God would not go with them, because they had become stiff-necked people (a reference to how God viewed people who are idolatrous). The Israelites would inherit the land as promised, maybe even benefit from it, but God would not go with them.

So, it is possible for the people of God—in name at least—to inherit the blessing of God, but be actually without God’s presence. Very similarly, non-poor Christians can enjoy the blessings of God’s creation, yet be without God. They can look and sound like God’s people, but not in truth when they live idolatrous lives. And without repeating myself from a host of other posts, it is clear from the Biblical data and the Gospel itself that Christians are to be associated with the poor and should be concerned about the affects of poverty. It seems to be, although true of any economic culture, but especially true in a culture that promotes upward mobility, that Christians ought to be concerned for those who cannot benefit from the blessings of the Land (i.e., the economic location) and be active (as a Go-Team) that addresses the causes of poverty.

PS But who are the experts? Now that’s a good question, and I don’t intend to offer the answer in an sense of fullness, but I am thinking experts from the social service world, business, education, psychology, urban development and redevelopment, economists, bankers, medical…

So I have come down to rescue them from the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land into a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey—the home of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (Exodus 3:8; cf. 3:17; 13:5).

Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way” (Exodus 33:3).

I am reading a great novel about investigating a mysterious plane crash.  It’s really a great read.  Enjoying it immensely. It is a novel called Crashers by Dana Haynes.  ”Crashers“ is the name given to Go-Teams who are sent to investigate airline plane crashes, leading experts from specific fields vested in determining the cause of the crash so it never happens again.  In the midst of the storyline a character, not necessarily religious, thinks a rather interesting thought that got me thinking.  She thought,

Land of milk and honey…Bloody lot of good it does if you can’t handle lactose and you’ve diabetes to boot.

The book and the line referred to, Land of milk and honey remind, obviously, of the references in Exodus about the Land of Promise, the Land of Gift, as “a land flowing with milk and honey.” This was the promise made to the Israelite slaves, captive and abused under Egyptian rule, namely that God would deliver them from Egypt and bring them to a new land, a land flowing with milk and honey.  Obviously good news.  Mostly the reference to milk and honey simple means the land would be fruitful agriculturally (the milk) and productive (the honey).  The land would be a benefit to the incoming inhabitants.  It would be workable, sustaining, a land that would allow a measure of self-sufficiency for the Israelites who believed God and followed Him into the land.

But, the second part of the character’s thought brought me back to the numerous references in Exodus and other exodus-related texts to the weak, economically vulnerable and the poor who would be fellow occupants of this land flowing with milk and honey (e.g., Exodus 22:22, 24-25; 23:3, 6; cf. Lev 19:15; Deut 1:17; 10: 18ff ; 16:19; 24:17, 18; Prov 23:10, 11; Jer 7:6, 7; Amos 4:1-2, etc.).  It is so true that if one is lactose intolerant, one cannot enjoy the benefit of milk.  Nor can honey be useful to someone who has diabetes.  Bloody lot of good it does them. 

Similarly, the poor and other economically vulnerable populations are exactly in this bloody fix: The poor and economically vulnerable are unable—because of lack of access, barriers, lack of power, educational gaps, demographic separation, gender bias or racism, lack of resources, legislative policy—to enjoy what the land has to offer.  The economic vulnerable and the poor cannot utilize the milk and lack the ability to enjoy the honey (or, cannot be productive for the lack of abilities and barriers).

As many of you know (at least the regulars to Words’nTone and those who browse into it from time to time) that my seventeen year old daughter was heading to Houston, TX to meet up with a small group of people who would drive to South Dakota to spend time with the Lakota Indians on the Rosebud Indian Reservation.  As a parent, I am thankful to those who prayed for Amanda and the team, and for those who contributed to the costs of the trip.  Amanda has safely returned to Connecticut, with stories and a new perspective on life and in her Christian walk.  Just to let people know, Amanda wrote a brief email that I shared with my friends, family, and colleagues.  Here is that note of thanks…

Hello everyone,

I am back and safely in CT.  I want to thank all of you for supporting me and praying for me (and the team) as I journeyed on my adventure to the Lakota Indians in South Dakota.

Thank you, so very much.

Although I am slightly disappointed that it is just as hot here in CT as it was in Texas, at least South Dakota was cool, and not to mention, one of the most beautiful places I’ve ever been.  God has truly created a beautiful world.

Anyways, just a brief update on how the trip went.  I can honestly say that I learned so much more on this ten day journey than I have in any given month’s time.  In my support letter I talked about wanting to “learn compassion,” however, I found myself growing in understanding.  Perhaps these are not mutually exclusive, that is, to grow in compassion means to grow in understanding.  In particular, I came to understand that the way things are on the reservation are so much more different than in any place I know or have experienced.  They have a mixture of their own Indian culture and the American culture; many Indians practice the Christian faith, but still cling to their Great Spirits.  One of the most impacting things, it was difficult to grasp a hold of that sad fact that the people on this reservation have the fifth highest place for suicides.  This is especially seen with their teenage suicide rates.  They have a drastic need for teachers (and of course this is important to me, because I want to be a history teacher), and they desperately need a stronger youth center, along with adult mentors and friends to show them a better way.

Again, thank you all for your support.  I will be communicating more on my trip, but this was to let people know, briefly, I made it back and had learned a lot, and am thankful for all of your prayers.

Sincerely,
Amanda

A number of years ago we witnessed at church on a Sunday morning a young man and his wife stand before us, poised and ready to head off to the foreign mission field: China. He was going as a medical-doctor-missionary for a organization called Christar. I remember the moment; it was great, wonderful, and moving. I could tell his parent’s were proud—I would be. He pointed to the place in the sanctuary where he sat as a teenager when he first felt called to missions. That day the young man was also the morning speaker for our church’s annual mission conference. He didn’t get far into his message before he began to cry, tears of passion for missions and thankfulness. The church, where he was called, was now sending him with support, blessings, and much prayer. He spoke on a simple theme: “How do we measure success?” Without the details, in summary he plainly explained that biblically, success = obedience. Not worldly prosperity, riches, or recognition. Sounded simple enough and to the biblical point as I recall.

Every church service has its serendipitous moment—we had one that morning in our pew. As part of the mission decor, the missions committee had placed a rather large, almost a story tall, balloon-world to our right in the sanctuary. It was filled with helium for about a week or so, giving it fullness and shape and rising up a bit into the sanctuary. After a week, however, the balloon was looking rather dilapidated, yet still holding itself up--somewhat. After the young man had finished speaking, our Pastor stood to close the service, pointed to the globe, and said, “What’s wrong with the world?” Without hesitation, more to us in the pew than to the rest of the congregation, my good friend, sitting next to me, Pete Kramka leaned toward my ear and replied, “Helium.”

Now that’s funny. I thought how true: The world is losing what it takes to stay afloat. I thought it also odd that the remaining helium in the plastic globe made the Northern hemisphere look fine. There was the USA all filled out, but the lack of helium at the bottom made South American and Africa all shriveled up, along with the southern portions of Asia. And there you have it—the Christianized west is full and fine, the unreached (least reached) and more populated countries are all shriveled up. What’s wrong with the world? It needs more helium—Christian witness and resources. I know, silly perhaps. But Pete’s retort struck me as funny, ironic, serendipitous. Nonetheless, the fact is 80% of Christian resources are used for 5% of the world’s population (that’s North America). And to add to that sad fact, most of that 80% of Christian resources is made to prop up wealthy and affluent church building-centered ministries in places of prosperity rather than in those places and locals and among people groups in the USA that are economically vulnerable and affected by poverty. Either way you—as a Christian—look at it, judgment on USA Christians will come, someday, and we will be held accountable for hording the 80%.

“It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money” (1 Timothy 3:1-3).

“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth…” (2 Tim 2:24-25).

“For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:5-9).

Something my mentor and Crown College theology professor, Dr. Don Alexander, once said has stuck with me all these years, etched in my memory. It came first in the form of a question: “By what means does the New Testament teach that a church grows? Through spiritual gifts or leadership?” He went on to explain and concluded the answer lies in “leadership.” Throughout my Christian life, now over thirty years, we’ve been have, ad nauseam, heard about the importance of spiritual gifts, finding our spiritual gifts (I always thought the NT taught they were given, not sought—and the only ones we are to pursue are faith, hope and love), using our spiritual gifts, etc., etc., etc. And as far back as I can remember, there have been some voices on leadership, but most of them just mimic of the business world or some new trend. I think about this every time we “vote” and “elect” new leaders for our churches—how is leadership really defined and characterized in the NT descriptions. This is not a critique of my church’s process (necessarily) or of any church’s—in fact the men and women leaders and the ones to be elected are usually very good people, active in our church, and faithful. One area, however (and there is always a however with me), over the years of my Christian life, I have found to be minimized and made marginal, but is a loud part of biblical leadership, namely can the leader teach? And more specifically, can leadership teach the foundations of the Christian faith as passed on by the apostles? A church leader, at least deacons and elders, ought to be able to teach sound doctrine and refute unsound doctrine. When the NT writer uses “teach” (didaskoo), it carries the weight of “apostolic teaching.” In other words, church leaders need to be able to teach the apostolic truth of the Gospel to their generation of believers in order to keep the church strong, faithful, and alive. They are to guard the church in this way. Size doesn’t matter. It didn’t in the NT—and as far as I can tell, the canon hasn’t been reopen and there isn’t a new redemptive era upon us with more revelation to be included in the canon on church growth and church leadership. Size doesn’t mean the church is being faithful to Scripture or to its Lord—in fact, the opposite seems more true…the larger the church, the more like the world is becomes. What matters is, can leaders teach? Can they guard the Gospel? That’s the legacy of leadership. That’s how a church grows.

When Jesus said, “The poor you will always have among you” (Mark 14:17) or when Moses penned, “There will always be poor in the land” (Deut 15:11), we should not take these statements as our goal, nor understand them as indicative of what we should expect as a future matter of fact. Nor, are these statements excuses for the Christian community of faith to eschew its responsibility to invest in the poor among us and seek to alleviate the causes of poverty. These are not matter of fact statements of fact, but descriptions of the proximity of the poor to God’s community. Almost as if to say, “While you are living in the land of promise, the poor will be living with you as well.” The Old Testament law and practices provided for how the community of promise was to treat and care for the poor. The New Testament does not rescind such arrangements or principles of conduct. In fact, these statements ought to be taken, “The poor will be in our midst, as they ought to be; they will be a sociological group associated with our community.” In fact there is a good likelihood that the New Testament text indicating that “poor always” will among the Christian community is drawn from that Deuteronomy text. In other words, Jesus and Moses were indicating that the poor are identified with His community of people. Being poor is not a mark or “automatic” entry into the invisible community of God—that comes through faith in God’s means of salvation, namely faith in His Word, faith in Jesus Christ. That being said, one cannot read through the Old and New Testaments without feeling the sense that God chooses the poor to be close by, to be close to His people. As someone has pointed out, these texts ought to remind the community of faith of its “share shared accountability and social responsibility” regarding the issue of helping the poor. As we benefit from God’s redemption (Old or New), we ought not ignore the poor among us or even seek to, as the same author says, “eradicate them.” As a part of our social structure, we have a sacred responsibility to them—a reason why Moses continued, “Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” Jesus enjoins, after indicating the poor’s presence among His people, “whenever you wish you can do good to them.” The problem: Do we wish? God’s people are defined as those who wish to do so. Moving away from them—i.e., further into the suburbs and into the countryside—is a sinfulr way of attempting to eradicate them, the poor, from our midst and does not relieve the Christian community of its responsibilities. One cannot escape the continuous indictments throughout Scripture against God’s people, and the eventual judgments, for ignoring our responsibility toward the “poor among us.”

Among all the books I read for work and study, I find time to read a few novels throughout the year as well. One of my favorite authors, William Martin, has just released City of Dreams, a great Summer time read. The three quotes below were worth posting, if for no other reason that Mr Martin almost word-for-word put in his story line things that my daughter, Amanda, has told me this year. She wants to be a historian and a history teacher. When I read Mr Martin’s words, I heard my daughter. She like, Martin’s main character, Peter Falon, wants to help others see “the shadows of the past as of it were still unfolding.” Enjoy the quotes and get City of Dreams for yourself—you will enjoy it.

“Sometimes she thought Peter had a pair of extra lenses in his sunglasses and whenever he wanted, he could flip them down like polarizing filters to remove the modern world, so that he could see the shadows of the past as if it were still unfolding” (p 108).

“He preferred books. Whenever he open some fancy Web site, he felt like the defender of a dying faith, a Roman pagan before the glowing presence of Christianity. If the march toward the electronization of everything from novels to newspapers continued, he’d have to start calling himself an antique dealer instead of a rare-book dealer, because the book would finally go the way of the buggy whip” (p 112).

“Just one of those tiny grains of sand in the great machinery of history” (p 117).

T.S. Eliot, in “Four Quartets,” penned:

   “To make an end is to make a beginning.
         The end is where we start from.”

Ever look at a book’s or story’s ending before you read it?  Of course, we all have at one time or another.  I have enjoyed reading a book by Morna D. Hooker called Endings: Invitations to Discipleship.  Simply, Hooker gives us an exposition of the endings of the four Gospels and Acts and how each ending is a summary of the content of its respective book.  She suggests that each Gospel writer, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John leave us “suspended” endings.  Endings that call the reader to carry on and live out the story—live out the Gospel.  In essence, the hearers of these Gospels and the story in Acts would come to the end, the last verses, hear the main point of the author, and find an invitation to discipleship.  I read Hooker’s Endings and I am reminded of the purpose and essence of preaching.  Every Sunday morning, for over 2000 years, from the rising of the sun until its setting, all across the globe—and now from almost every language and tongue—someone stands to continue the story.  Although not the inerrant Word, preaching—in as mush as it faithfully reflects the intention of the text of Scripture—is the Word of God.  Elsewhere I have suggested: “The sermon is a redemptive historical event where God’s presence invades and the Kingdom of God is revealed in a moment in time, in a particular place, through the proclamation of His written Word.” Sidney Greidanus reminds us, “God uses contemporary preaching to bring his salvation to people today, to build his church, to bring in his kingdom. In short, contemporary biblical preaching is nothing less than a redemptive event.” The weightiness of the sermon should be taken seriously. Each sermon is a “carrying on” of the Gospel story.  Each sermon ought to be a call to discipleship—to be part of the ending.

Back in 1994, a few months before I finished up my time as a professor at Prairie Bible College in Three Hills, Alberta, my students asked me about the books that most changed me or significantly impacted my thinking over the years.  So, I came up with Chip’s Top Ten and posted the list outside my office door.  Eventually that list made it on to my Words’nTone website.  Here’s my original Top Ten:

1. Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching by Walter C. Kaiser
2. Idols for Destruction: The Conflict of Christian Faith and American Culture by Herbert Schlossberg
3. Problem of the Wineskins: Church Renewal in a Technological Age by Howard A. Snyder
4. The Origin of Paul’s Gospel by Seyoon Kim
5. The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America by Richard John Neuhaus
6. Called and Committed: World Changing Discipleship by David Watson
7. The Gravedigger File: Papers on the Subversion of the Modern Church by Os Guinness
8. Jesus and the Old Testament by R. T. France
9. The American Hour: A Time of Reckoning and the Once and Future Role of Faith by Os Guinness
10. Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal by Richard F. Lovelace

Not that there weren’t other books of great significance, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship (now published just under the title, Discipleship) and Oswald Chamber’s My Utmost for His Highest , both had profound impacts on my Christian life.  Easily I could have listed twenty as my top.  But, these Ten made the top because they made impact that far outreached the contents of the books, forming my early Christian thinking patterns, challenged my assumptions about my faith and my world, and drove me into more biblical patterns of understanding of how to read and hear the Bible.  That was back in May of 1994, books that had influenced me in the first 16 years of my Christian faith.  That was 16 years ago.  I have done some reading since, so I have decided it is time for another Top Ten.

I read probably close to three books a month—easily.  And this doesn’t include novels and journal articles and research studies.  The new Top Ten list is made up of books that have made a significant impact in how I understand the Christian faith, moving me deeper into Scripture, giving me profound insight in my pursuit of solid Biblical interpretation and application, and how my faith is to impact my world around me.  These books, like the first set, are more foundational than application.

Over the past thirteen years I have been moving in such a different direction than I found myself fourteen years ago: moving from pastoring and bible teaching to program development for economically vulnerable populations, moving from a Church-centered focus and vocation to a social action-centered life and occupation.  This list reflects this change.

Over the months to come I will post Ten + two (I had to add, just couldn’t ultimately eliminate the last two) books that are worth picking up and reading.  Perhaps some, if not all of them will have similar impact on your life.

In the recent posts on why I think the general population of Christians in the pews is lethargic to digging into their Bible and why there is a problem with Bible literacy among Christians, I mentioned one thing that bugs the living day lights out of me: When preachers say, “God gave me this message.” Now, this comes in many forms, and no matter how pious, spiritual, or even humble it sounds, it is always self-serving, dangerous, and to put it more frankly, damnably sinful. We hear, “I prayed all week and this is what God gave me.” “God laid this message on my heart.” “God gave me these verses.” Even, “God spoke to me…” and “God revealed to me…” We have heard all of these and more, from preachers, seeking to establish their authority over those—whether small or great numbers in the audience—who are listening to them.

First, the only authority a preacher has stems from the Word. No matter what they tell you God tells them. Second, these self-affirming words from preachers is always all about the preacher and not about God, nor the Word that God would like to speak to those intent on listening. Such positioning makes the message all about the one saying it—it claims power, special insight and relationship to God; it is manipulative, and self-serving. Always.

Now, listen. I am not saying the preacher can’t hear from God, or receive a burden to preach on such and such topic or texts. When I was a pastor I prayed everyday for God to help me on sermons and what to preach and when. I even asked God to give me insight. But none of these prayers were to replace sound exegesis and study. And when I did feel God had given me a message or insight or a text, I never (NEVER) claimed in front of those whom I was to speak any special insight or revelation. I did my best to preach the Word, to preach the text of Scripture. I tried to show, from the text, God’s Word to those who were listening. I tried to show how and where, from the text, I got my message. I had no authority save that which was in the text. And if I did not exposit the text, I had no authority. Whether I accomplished this every time I spoke matters not; it was my goal.

James Denny once said, “No man can bear witness to Christ and to himself at the same time. No man can give the impression that he is clever and that Christ is mighty to save.” This goes as well to claiming some special insight, divine revelation, or special relationship with God—no preacher can bear witness of the Word and to himself at the same time. No preacher can give the impression that he has received something special from God his audience cannot or has not and preach the Word of God.

Another and final reason, akin to the first (2 of 3), is that the preacher/Sunday School teacher/Bible Study leader doesn’t show the Christians in the pew how to dig into the Bible. We preachers and teachers actually teach, not just in the content of what we preach or teach, but in how we model. If we are apt to use the Bible and its words to back up what we want to say, we are not showing the everyday person in the pew how to read and interpret the Bible for themselves. The preacher/teacher becomes the hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible. But if we show them how we got our interpretation (let alone our application), we help them to see how to do it for themselves.

As mentioned above, we all have been before preachers and teachers who are telling us great things, even those we need to hear, but the texts they are quoting and the passages of Scripture they are using don’t match. At least we can’t see from the text where or how they are getting their message. At most, really at the worst, we are learning it doesn’t matter, we don’t have the secret gift to get “behind the words” and we just need to trust that the preacher/teacher is telling the truth that “God gave them the message.” At worst.

Now I grant it, sometimes it hard, but preachers/teachers need to—ought to—try hard to show, from the text, how they get their interpretation and then how the application matches the Word from God which is from the text.

It is no wonder that everyday Christians don’t devour the Bible for themselves. They are actually taught not to. We preachers and teachers need to turn that around. Take pains to show how and where they get their message, their interpretation from the texts of Scripture they are preaching/teaching from.

Additionally, topical preaching/teaching is the biggest culprit. This means a lot of “proof texting” and very little explanation on how we are getting our message. Preaching/teaching from passages and learning to listen to passages of Scripture is the best way to help the person in the pew hear from God (rather than the preacher) and, as a by product, teaches how to read the passages for themselves.

I believe Christians are lethargic about knowing their Bibles because our preachers and teachers in our churches don’t enable them to read and hear the biblical text for themselves. The preacher/teacher best serves those hearing them when they explain, from the text, where they got their message and how they got their message. Unless, truthfully, despite our chastising that Christians aren’t devouring the Bible, we actually want that power and want to keep them lethargic about getting into their Bibles.

Almost every Christian in America has their own Bible.  Most have a high enough literacy level to be able to read it.  Comprehending might be harder, but I think most American Christian can give it a good shot.  So, there I was teaching in a Sunday School class, many years ago now, when I had everyone open to Matthew 6:33 and I read,

“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”

After reading it I asked a simple—well what I thought was a simple—question: ”What does this verse say?” I was actually surprised—no one said a thing.  They stared at their Bible and then stared back at me—a few times.  Their lips pinched together and scrunched up and foreheads frowned, all motioning they had no idea.  So I prodded a little more.  But nothing.  Then someone said, “I don’t know what you mean ‘what does it mean.’ I am not sure what it really says.” I was dumbfounded.  Perplexed.  Here’s what I got out of that.  Even the plain English wasn’t enough to get what this verse said, at least to the “lay reader.” They weren’t let in on the “secret” behind the text.  That secret knowledge only certain people have to interpret the Bible.

I don’t think I was far off on this.  These good people had grown up in the Church or listened for years to preachers who preached from texts, telling them what a text meant, but the “meaning” wasn’t always obvious.  That’s why the preacher had to explain it.  This took a special insight; a gift not given to the laity.  Or so it seemed.  The meaning preached wasn’t what the plain English set before their eyes.  The preacher/Sunday school teacher “has special insight” and powers to get a meaning that couldn’t be gotten from words, syntax, and grammar.  Now come on—admit it.  How many times have you liked what the preacher said, but it’s really not what the text says.  And secretly, you just don’t know where the preacher got it.

I think many Christians are simply not motivated to devour the Bible for themselves because what is preached and taught isn’t matched up with the texts the preaching/teaching is from.  And it takes special insight and a special connection to God to get this information.  One reason the people of the pew don’t dig deep in and devour the Bible is that they don’t have the “secret knowledge” to get what it “really” says.  They have been taught this over and over for years as preachers and Sunday School leaders bombard them week after week with “interpretation” that only they could get—because they have special insight and for crying out loud, they have a special connection to God.  Heck some, maybe even most, tell us week after week that God gave them this interpretation.  They speak for God.  We can’t do that.  We are not on the in.  And who are we to disagree once a preacher says, “I prayed and God gave me this message.” Even if the texts used don’t match up with the interpretation.  It must be us—we don’t have that special, secret insightful power.  Of course the preacher, et. al. will disagree with me publically, most anyway, but it is what they teach week after week, subtly, some innocently, some purposely.  It is what they say with their actions each week.

Another reason, akin to the first, is that the preacher/Sunday School teacher/Bible Study leader doesn’t show the Christians in the pew how… the topic of the third post in this thread…