is53:1-3

The arm of the Lord - his salvation, his justice, his righteousness - was shown to us.  All of the healing and restoration that our world needs was set before us that we might find life and health.  The plagues of this world, brought about by sin, hatred, disease and death, were dealt with by the power of the Sovereign Lord.  This is the moment of his coming, and the hour of his appearance.  On this day his victory has been established.

But we rejected it.

Why?

Because it didn't come to us with great fanfare, and our would-be saviors always ascend to their thrones with great celebration and power.  Our wisdom assures us that the only way to overcome the world is with more vigorous debate, ever-increasing programs, more destructive bombs, clamoring campaign promises, and rousing public opinion.  Victors have their soldiers in the fight, and their entourage in the celebration march.  Instead, the arm of the Lord was given to us softly, quietly and unassumingly.  We were quite certain that this couldn't be the path to triumph.

And then we saw that he was ordinary.  Actually, below ordinary.  We look not only for the mighty and powerful, but for those who are attractive.  Those who have means in our culture go to great lengths to refine their own allure, and we follow them in our own adornment.  Our collective wisdom looks to magazines and listens to the broadcasts in order to hear what is fashionable and true and good.  We do not need anyone to redefine our sense of good, we have the voices of our self-appointed elite to do that.  We were quite certain that anyone who couldn't appeal to a wide range of people couldn't lead us on the path to triumph.

And then realized that he was quite humiliated, and therefore had no credibility for us any longer.  After all, heroes may get roughed up along the way but champions are never the ones who are beaten, bruised and tossed away as a joke.  The champion is the one who stands over the helpless body of his enemy, never cowering from the fight.  In our wisdom, once we realized that the pain and suffering of this so-called-arm-of-the-Lord, we determined that God had forgotten all about him . . . and so should we.  We were quite certain that even God himself wouldn't have us waste time on such failure.

So, how can this be called the mighty arm of the Lord?  In the collective wisdom of our world, it doesn't seem like much of a victory.

life's intersections

In the city where I live there is an intersection which has two gas station/convenience stores, one on the southeast corner and one on the northwest corner.  They are both Speedway brand stores . . . no joke.  It is my hope that they are owned by the same person, but I've never looked into it.

There has been a question forming in my mind, sort of a pastime thought experiment.  It started through my own shopping habits, but really took shape when I saw the double-Speedway intersection.

Here is a missional question . . .

All minor details being equal (cost factor, distance, quality of service, etc), if presented with two local business - one owned by a member of your church community, the other owned by a non-churchgoing agnostic - which place should a missional believer choose to frequent, for the sake of the kingdom?

On the one hand, we take care of our brothers and sisters in Christ and should support their livelihoods by making their business prosper.  On the other hand, we are summoned to be salt and light into a broken world, which would mean showing agnostic businesspeople the love and grace that Christian people (ought to) have.  One is the edification of believers, the other is lifestyle evangelism.  Of course, we could make a habit of going back-and-forth . . . but that might simply be the philosophical copout option when in reality we know that we get into routines.  (Also, the thought experiment assumes that you would be a 'regular' if either impact is to be made.)

What if we change the parameters a bit?

1. Christian-owned business v. outspoken-atheist-owned business.
2. Christian-owned business v. Muslim-owned business.
3. Christian-owned business v. Milwaukee-Brewers-fan-owned business (just kidding, nobody would choose the latter).

You get the idea.  I am curious as to what kind of thought we have when making decisions like these.  If we have any thought at all.  If we simply choose to support the members of our church without consideration, are we then in danger of creating a disconnected holy huddle?  If we simply choose to be the evangelists at all costs, then are we being unsupportive of those business that have a positive kingdom presence which could help transform neighborhoods?

One could go back and forth for quite some time, I think . . .

the subversive song

In his excellent volume, Spirituality according to Paul, Rodney Reeves enters into the notion of worship as subversive in a chapter on the church's "Common Bonds" (110-127).  In the introduction to the material of this passage he says, "Sometimes I wonder, 'Why are we doing this?  Compared to everyday experiences, this is a rather odd thing to do'" (112).

What he is talking about?  Singing.  More specifically, the act of singing together as a weekly event in the life of the church congregation.  And, yes, if we are honest with ourselves and accurate in describing our societal context, it is a rather odd thing to do.  Especially if we are claiming that our message and our work are meant to change the world.

What countless cultures throughout the ages have known is that singing is an act of subversion.  It binds together hope, ideology, heritage, history, theology - and even a stark challenge to the way things are in the present.  Rich Mullins defines music as "the finest thing I have ever found," and it does indeed have a quality that is unlike any other in the universe.  The power of song can bring together so many elements of our lives, and that is why people of faith hold this rather odd activity so dearly.

But what happens when the song remains in the sanctuary?  Indeed, I think that many evangelicals are taken back by the notion of the subversive song because it is too seldom taken out of the sanctuary.  When our songs fail to leave the church building (i.e., they do not form an integral part of our daily lives), they no longer act as a challenge (or threat) to the powers that are around us.  The songs we sing have power when they are accurate expressions of what is central to who we are as kingdom people.

A. W. Tozer taught us that we are not ready for worship on Sunday if we are not worshipping throughout every other day of the week.  In some sense, this now might move in reverse: our Sunday worship must break out from the four walls in which we come together and flood into the streets.  The gospel is a challenge to evil, but only if we work to establish God's justice and righteousness.  Our songs help encapsulate such hopes, dreams and desires so that they might resonate in our hearts and spirits.

We come into the sanctuary to hear the song and to learn the song.  But then we must take it and teach it to the nations, line by line, verse by verse, knowing full well that it will spell out the failure of that which now asserts its own authority.  There is subversion to the powers that be when we sing the songs of Zion in a strange and foreign land.

regard them as tax-collectors

In Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus teaches on how the community of his followers are to handle the issue of internal conflict and unrepentant persons.  Seldom have I seen three verses used as the foundation of supposed church conduct as much as I have been encountered with this.  This hasn't been widespread in my Christian experience, so I know that it is pocketed to certain parts of the subculture.  But, for many people, this has become a prime example of giving far too much weight upon three verses while ignoring the whole tenor of Jesus' teaching.

However, I believe that there is a way to take these three verses (there is not a whole lot said on this particular issue, mind you) and keep them in proper check with the remainder of Scripture that will certainly keep those who wish to misuse three trees at the expense of the forest at bay.

First, it is to understand Jesus' context.  He is speaking about those who are confronted with their sinful behavior and who refuse to repent - beginning with individual interpersonal conflict and moving in concentric circles to the whole community.  But, have we sought to remember that the larger context into which Matthew places this teaching (18:1-35) is humility and forgiveness?  There is much more to how I am acting as a humble follower of Christ than there is on how I can "win" the excommunication of someone who has wronged me.

Second, it is to understand what Jesus is teaching when we treat a person as a "pagan or tax collector."  I have a close friend who once questioned the official teachings of his church (since as a young believer he could not find in Scripture that which was being taught in his congregation), who has been forever deemed reprobate and is essentially shunned from those who remain.  Let us be clear, there is no such command or teaching in Scripture that would call for such behavior.  Again, when we are in conflict we like the part where Jesus says to kick 'em out at tax-collectors, but we aren't so keen on the multitude of passages where Jesus intentionally went to be with the tax-collectors and sinners (often at the expense of his 'religious credibility') for the purpose of being the doctor to those who were sick.

Perhaps our best next-step in studying Matthew 18:15-17 is to look at 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, where dissociation of the community is present, but so also is the clear instruction, "Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer."  Or, what about the restoration that comes from such tough love as Paul speaks about in 2 Corinthians 2?

In the end, I will not make an effort to deny that there is disfellowship as a member of the Christian community present in Jesus' teaching.  But such action is drastic and it is purposeful.  Those who wish to use these three verses as a way to "win" over another believer, to gain for themselves power and prominence in a community, or to divide the unity of the body are themselves out of step with Jesus' repeated command to love one another and to work for the edification of all believers.  Let us remember that just a few verses prior to this is his warning against those who will cause his little children to stumble.

I am so tired of hearing "Matthew 18!  Matthew 18!" and forgetting that love, not a procedure, is central to discipleship.  Love will move in all things to build up the body of believers.

review: revelation for everyone

N. T. Wright, Revelation for Everyone (Louisville: WJK, 2012).

And so The Bishop comes to the end of an eleven year project of providing a commentary on the entire New Testament accessible to those who would typically never pick up a commentary.  It appears that he has achieved this objective, as many persons (lay and clergy alike) and small groups have been using the for Everyone series to better understand and navigate through their Scriptures.  (The project was so welcome by the church that now John Goldingay is working on doing the same for the Old Testament.  I have yet to explore these, but since I have high regards for Goldingay I will assume they are quite good as well.)

I have been particularly excited about the publication of Revelation for Everyone because I have been seriously studying and teaching Revelation for the past five years.  This volume came out while I was taking a Sunday school class through the Apocalypse.  Actually, this is the first time I have ever adapted my course materials for a church environment and the fact that I could engage Wright's work as I went along was a tremendous gift.

For many in the church reading (much less making sense of) Revelation is a daunting task, in no small part to the amount of kooky interpretation that has plagued evangelicalism for years.  I have often been a self-proclaimed champion for the cause of reclaiming the truth of God's Word from the irresponsible and self-serving nut-cases that have made the powerful and poignant message of Revelation into a farce.  This volume will certainly be a welcome tool for the overwhelmed laity and clergy to listen and hear the message of faith which we should have never lost in the first place.

I posted a while back where I disagreed with The Bishop (see, I am willing to do it people!) over his interpretation of the message given to Sardis.  Beyond that, there simply was no point of significant disagreement within Wright's discussion.  This is a good and solid introduction and survey of Revelation's primary themes and message, designed to impact the reader with the challenge of faith which the first century book intended for us to experience.  Especially due to the book's formatting, it would be too difficult to survey its contents here, but I do wish to commend (and the entire series) to all believers seeking a better understanding of God's Word - and how to effectively communicate it to the world in which we live (and this latter point is one of the key strengths of this series).

Because of my own experience, I have considered whether or not I would use this book as a text for teaching Revelation.  In a more academic setting (college or graduate study) I probably would seek out a book that is more challenging to the student, pushing them into the debates and discussions that make for appropriate study at such a level.  Rather than seeing this as a deficiency in what Wright has given us, this is simply an acknowledgement of what he was written - namely, a text that does not become overgrown with such debates and discussions, but which presents the message of faith clearly and concisely to the average reader.  And on that end, it is inviting and engaging through and through.