I’ve been trying to think about what I would like to preach this year. Back in November and December of ‘08, I wrote out two complete series of sermons-each 10 weeks long. I was ready for ‘09. Then, well, let’s just say there were some issues with my mouth and my pen and then, well, let’s just say that I won’t be preaching either of those series of sermons anytime soon. Sermon schedules aren’t that helpful when the preacher is being undone by the Spirit.

So that leaves me here, wondering, staring at snow and a computer monitor, drinking a cup of hot tea, contemplating…what shall I preach? What does my church need to hear? What do I need to wrestle with in prayer and what Scripture do I need to be confronted with over and over again so that it becomes the breath in my lungs and the blood in my veins and every waking thought in my head and heart? No, not that one!

Then on the way home from the gym this morning, I was suddenly overcome by a thought, one word, something had toyed with but that seemed too convenient at the time. I mean, of course I should preach about that. Always; who shouldn’t? It’s not that I don’t preach about it, every sermon I preached is infused with and under-girded by this. And I think also, at the same time, even though the thought has continued to regurgitate itself, I have been fighting against it. Seriously: there is a part of me that does not want to preach this. There is a part of me that thinks if I preach it now it might seem choreographed to justify myself or something silly like that. Strange that I cannot get beyond trying to discern the motives of others when I should really be examining my own motives.

Even now, I am afraid somewhat to post this, lest someone misunderstand MY motives. It is a terrible thing, it seems to me, to live for nothing other than trying to discern motives when even the apostle Paul didn’t care about motives.

William Willimon wrote, “Preachers, by the nature of their vocation, are those who speak because they have been told something to say. Can you imagine Paul pacing about his prison cell, agonizing because ‘I have nothing to say to First Church Corinth?’” (Conversations with Barth on Preaching, 47). We speak, he notes, because God has spoken. I am normally very organized in my preaching schedule. Right now I’m not. This is one of those times when I have to ‘not worry about what to say because the Holy Spirit is teaching me what to speak’ and, I am fighting it. I don’t want to preach what the Holy Spirit is telling me to preach. I want to preach from my neatly organized sermon schedules that are lying upon my desk on nice clean paper not from some fit of inspiration that certainly did not come from within me. He’s stalking me.

Seriously. I don’t want preach this word, but as I was on my way home from the gym this morning, was so overcome by this that I literally had to pull off the road. I’m not like that at all. I’m organized. I’m a planner. I want to know where I’m going and how I’m getting there. “Oh God, don’t do this to me. I don’t want to preach on that.” Christus Victor, yes! Resurrection, yes! Anything but this. But it is a losing battle. I can’t shake it. I’m defeated. I’m undone.

” ‘A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.’

” ‘Lord, where are you going?’”

Jesus commands us to love. Why? Because if it is not commanded we will likely not do it. Seriously, loving one another is hard work and not work we are likely to engage in if we don’t have to. How many of us make an effort to love the ‘least of these’? How many of us go out of our way to ‘love one another’?

I don’t want to preach on love, not now. How can I love now when I know there are ‘issues’ and when I feel like some haven’t loved me. It might seem too fake, too contrived, too choreographed. Right. Like preaching a ten-week series on church leadership isn’t contrived! Still, God is not being at all merciful to me right now. I don’t want to do this, but…

And here’s the worst part of it: I know he’s talking to me; first. I looked briefly at another blog yesterday (I won’t mention which one, but use your imagination) and saw that the top three posts on the front page were all scathing attacks against pastors, men who stand in a pulpit each week and proclaim the Gospel of Christ; imperfectly all, yes, but done nonetheless. And Christ empowers their words or he doesn’t. My heart broke when I saw those blog posts. I am asked to love a person who has not a kind word for even these preachers? How can I do that?  ”I don’t want to preach on love! I can’t preach on love! I am too angry to preach about something so redemptive, something so resurrection empowered, something so kingdom oriented as love. Can’t I just preach on something else. What words could come out of my mouth now about love.” That Hound of Heaven has me in his jaws and the more I wriggle around and excuse myself and justify my Jonah-like attitude about this sermon, the deeper in those jaws sink to my flesh and spirit.

Who cares if we don’t love one another? And how will preaching change any of that at all? Then I was slapped in the jaw with this: If we don’t love one another, how on earth are we going to love our enemies and the poor and those who persecute us? That is, if we don’t, won’t, or can’t love one another-those whom it should be easiest to love-then how on earth are we ever going to be able to love those it is the most difficult to love? Or, worse, if I cannot love those I can see in the flesh, then how can I ever begin to love the God whom I cannot see?

It is far easier, I think, to simply pretend that I love ‘one another’ and go on in life without any real level of commitment to those persons. Words can be terribly empty at times, can’t they? I think it is far more complicated and difficult to be obedient to the command to love one another when there is nothing to gain except a possible rejection. Yet the command is not abated or rescinded. Jesus didn’t say, ‘Wait until everything is A-OK and then love one another’ He just said, “Love one another” and he qualified this in no way at all. Love. We are the only ones who qualify love.

Paul wrote that ‘love keeps no records of wrongs,’ but that doesn’t mean love begins with a clean slate. It means that love wipes the slate clean and starts all over again-each second, each minute, each hour, each day. It means that I forgive 70 times 7 70 times 7 times a day. Do you understand why my flesh is rebelling against this? Jesus has commanded us to do the most difficult thing imaginable: Love one another. My God, I cannot love one another. Or maybe, I don’t want to. Either way, what you are asking Lord is too difficult. Lord, how do I love those and preach love to those that I am struggling to love right now and who are not struggling at all to love me? Is there room in the church for this love? Better: Can the church survive without it right now?

And I don’t want to preach it. I really don’t. Wouldn’t it be safer for all of us if we didn’t have to love those we are like and unlike? Wouldn’t it be safer if I didn’t have to extend and expend myself for someone else and take the risk that they might just be in need of love or that I am commanded to love regardless of reciprocation? Loving one another might mean I have to forgive or humble myself or repent or admit that I am wrong-sometimes even if I am not wrong. Loving one another might mean that I have do all that I can to secure peace even if means that I have to ‘be wrong’, which Paul seems to think is far better (1 Corinthians 6:7). What is impossible with man, is possible with God.

Why is it easier to love those outside the church than those inside it? Why does our flesh rebel against this command of Christ? Why is it that ‘loving one another’ has to be commanded in the first place? Well, I sure don’t understand that at all!

Jesus three times said, “Love one another.” Yet when he was finished Peter looked at him and said, “Lord where are you going?” You know why I don’t want to preach it, love, that is? That’s why. What Peter said.

And yet, Sunday’s sermon is already written. Now I am free to practice what I preach. Better, now I am free to love. That is, Jesus didn’t tell me to preach love. He told me to love.

Semper Deo Gloria!

Tags: Jesus, love, love one another, preaching

Or, two steps forward and 3 steps backward…

I read a couple of book reviews this morning while I was at the gym. They are located in the vast expanse that is the back pages of the latest edition of Modern Reformation magazine (of which I am a loyal, 3 year subscriber). One of the reviews was written by someone named JV Fesko who happens to be a pastor at the Geneva Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Woodstock, GA. The book that Dr Fesko is reviewing is a book by John MacArthur titled The Gospel According to Jesus which is, in itself, ironic, since the book is written by John MacArthur.

But I’ll leave that aside for the moment. The reviewer doesn’t spare any criticism of MacArthur or his book. You would think, after reading the review, that MacArthur is firmly on the side of those Fesko perceives MacArthur is (evidently) doing battle with (i.e., ”…present dispensational antinomianism” (’carnal christians’), 39). There are two paragraphs that speak somewhat positively about the book and four that list the books weaknesses. I don’t doubt that Dr Fesko is writing what he believes. One look at his curriculum vitae at his church’s webpage (under ‘about the pastor) will tell you that this is no mere ADM writing a review of a book. This is a learned man. Still, at the end of my reading, I couldn’t help but feel a little bad for Dr MacArthur.

One might expect that Dr MacArthur is writing a popular level book (he wants it to sell) and not a scholarly systematic theology (he wants praise from the scholarly community) which leads me to ask if perhaps Dr Fesko hasn’t missed the point and over-analyzed the book. (It is, after all, a ‘revised and expanded anniversary edition of Mac’s book!) This also leads me to believe that perhaps MacArthur was intentional in leaving some things out of the book and not ‘digging deeper.’

Well, be that as it may. Here’s the real reason I am writing this short post. In the review, Dr Fesko wrote this, “Perhaps if the author had done in-depth research he would have discovered Walter Marshall’s book The Gospel Mystery of Santification.  (Must be a good book as it received three positive reviews at amazon.) Still what bugs me is that Marshall, the author of the book, lived, according to Fesko, from 1628-1680 (one of the reviewers at amazon noted that Marshall’s book was written in 1692! Hmmm.)  Fesko concludes by writing, “MacArthur’s book is helpful, but one can do better with Marshall’s book on union with Christ” (40). (All quotes and information from Modern Reformation, Jan/Feb 2009.)

1600? You mean to tell me that in the 500 some years since Marshall published his work no one, and I mean not one single person on the planet, in the church, has written a book about sanctification better than Marshall? Does this strike anyone besides me as being terrifically odd? That is quite an indictment of the last 500 years’ worth of Academic Christianity!

That’s really all I wanted to ask.

1600? Seriously? Forgive me if I don’t take Dr Fesko’s review too seriously. 1600? Am I the only one laughing?

On the other hand, it is sort of amazing that MacArthur isn’t getting a free pass and that, evidently, he can’t write a better book than one written 500 some years ago. I’m feeling for you Dr MacArthur.

Last year, we addressed the subject of ‘naughty’ language in a number of comment threads, and at least one post (which summed up a position I believe most, if not all, of the writers would agree with).

Yet, from time-to-time, this topic still comes up.

In light of this, Abraham Piper (yeah, he’s from that Piper family…) recently posted some thoughts congruent with ours:

Even though we react more viscerally to bad language, it’s worse to use a nice word spitefully than a naughty word cordially.

This was a corollary to his previous observation on this subject:

(I would also note that Abraham’s blog, twenty-two words, is interesting, as in each post, he condenses his thoughts on a subject to … twenty-two words.  He’s often got interesting, concise observations that I find quite timely.)

With the NFL playoffs in full swing, it’s time for a pool.  Unfortunately, it’s got nothing to do with football.  The bet is this — despite

• its glaring inaccuracies
• its obvious pre-meditated agenda
• its hideous mis-characterizations
• its inaccurate descriptions of many aspects of Christianity, and
• its appearance in a secular journal,

which ADM will first claim this article as holy writ, simply because it takes shots at Mark Driscoll, one of their favorite whipping boys.

I’m so excited about this contest, I may even give away a copy of a book to the winner.

HT to JT.

We don’t write all that often about Israel, here.

Well, make that modern-day Israel.

There are some current events there, though, which I believe merit some comment, though I’ve not had the think-time to synthesize a nice article from them. It’s kind of weird, but since a number of folks in my church know I’m so interested in the Hebrew roots of Scripture, they ask me all sorts of questions about modern-day Israel politics (often with Left Behind tinges that I pretty quickly (and effectively, IMHO) squash through what is now a fairly pat refutation of futurist pre-mil dispensatinonalism…).

1) The current situation surprises me none in the least, and I predicted last summer that if Obama won the US election that Israel would be taking significant military actions to protect itself, as it would not be able to count on US support (or non-opposition) after January 20, 2009.  It also would not surprise me if the Gaza action wasn’t a feint to distract from a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

2) I support Israel’s ignoring the “sternly written letters” from the UN (not endorsed by the US) in the current fighting.  Israel is trying to eliminate Hamas, a terrorist organization supported by Iran, and quash their ability to lob rockets into Israel several times a day.  I can guaran-darn-tee you that if Cuba decided to lob rockets into Key West every other day that we’d be pounding the ground of Havanah toot-sweet, without much protest from the US populace, regardless of the number of sternly written UN letters gathering mold in our in-box.  In fact, I have to say that Israel’s shown quite a bit of restraint with Gaza, as I believe most Western countries would have leveled Gaza city years ago, with the shenanigans they were involved in…

3) As the sole independent democracy in the region (hopefully to be fully joined soon by Iraq), I believe we should support Israel, though we should not condone true atrocities committed against the Palestinian people (noting that “I put my hood on and now I’m a ‘freedom fighter’” followed by “I take off my hood and now I’m an innocent civilian” doesn’t square with victimhood in my book…)

4) I find that support of Israel, based on hopes of them clearing off the Temple Mount and building a “Third Temple”, is pretty stupid.  Such support gives Israel a blank check in terms of humanitarian policy, completely apart from the shoddy theology on which it is built.  (It seems to me that Paul put to rest the notion of building a Third Temple in his letter to the Corinthins, observing that we, the church, are the Temple of the Holy Spirit – since it vacated the Second Temple on Pentecost, 33 A.D.)

5) In the current conflict, I would also note the “soft” opposition Israel has received to this point from the Arab world, and from the (Fatah) Palestinians outside of Gaza.  Iran (a Persian country – not an Arab one – a distinction we Westerners often miss) is feared more by most Arab countries moreso than Israel is hated.  As such, Israel’s Arab enemies would like to see Iran’s plans thwarted, after which they will go back to hating Israel with a fervor greater than any other passion.

6) People sometimes ask about Genesis 12:1-3 along with other OT passages about the nation of Israel, and whether or not they are still in effect.  My answer to this on is – I am not certain.  I do not believe that the modern state of Israel is equivalent to the ancient religious state of Israel.  However, I do believe that God’s promise was to His chosen people, the Jews, and I don’t see an expiry date on it.  Thus, I see that a pro-semitic policy is wise, particularly in view of the generally anti-semitic view historically held my most corners of the world.  Again, though, I do not see that this is, or should be, a blank check.

So, when I’m asked about Israel, like I was just a few minutes ago in line for lunch, I try not to be too simplistic (realizing that this article is still pretty darn simplistic and that there’s a LOT of context behind what’s going on in that patch of land on the Mediterranean Sea), while still trying to remain true to my faith.

Thus, when someone says “can you give me the short answer”, my answer is “I don’t think there is one”…

Though the literalists tried to avoid using critical-historical-exegetical methods of interpretation, attempting to continue to read scripture in essentially ‘precritical’ terms, they eventually succumbed to historical-critical methods, believing that by uncovering the ‘real’ history of the text, it would serve their literalist intentions. (As I noted earlier, in my experience, about the only ardent, uncritical defenders of the methods of historical criticism tend to be conservative Evangelicals who believe that history gives them their best defense that the biblical narrative ‘report’ can be secured, stabilized, and made certain through the unassailable historical ‘fact’ recovered by the historian.) To these literalists I would say that if historical methodology has enabled you to secure a text that is truly ‘inerrant’ and ‘infallible,’ then you certainly do not need the Holy Spirit to help you read and interpret Scripture. Nor should you bother with the living, speaking, resurrected Christ. Go worship your unassailable, inerrant, infallible fact and life will be easier for you than attempting to worship the living Christ.”

This, by the way, is why Barth not only rejects topical preaching, be it catechetical, ethical, or occasional, but also rejects expository preaching–if what is meant is extraction of some idea from the biblical text. In expository preaching this extracted idea is then expounded and applied, turning biblical narrative into abstract, general concepts and allegedly ‘biblical principles.’ Barth criticized expository preaching for representing a ‘bondage to the letter’ and an abuse of the Bible, making it into a source rather than a witness. It privileges the text over its context (who is Jesus Christ) and fixed principles of living agency. The only proclamation worthy of the name is the self-proclamation of the Word of God.”

William H. Willimon, Conversations with Barth on Preaching, 35-36 (my emphasis)

Soli Deo Gloria!

In their latest attempt to label all things herectical C?N does a wonderful job of…well…I’m not exactly sure I can connect the dots.  Apparently John 3:30 means that having a conference to talk about church planting among other things is the opposite of increasing Christ.

Apparently Dwayna believes that at Innovation 3 there is not going to be “one mention of Jesus” the entire time they are discussing:

We’ll be talking about innovative topics like risk and failure in ministry, shaping the culture through the church, how to achieve missional community, and what the church will look like in the year 2020.

And we’ll discuss innovative ministry models, with smaller, practical gatherings centered around multi-site ministry, women’s ministry, externally focused churches, missional renaissance, recovery ministries, generous church initiatives, church planting, and more.

With those topics and the list of pastors I can’t even fathom how anyone could even assume that Jesus would not be mentioned.  Actually I can; leaps in logic, agendas, GBA, and a few other fallacy’s.

It seems that controversy has entered all spheres of Christendom lately, and the last standout of American Evangelical culture, the Christian bookstore isn’t immune to it.  Now, it’s true that through the years there have been many “Christian” books that aren’t worth the paper their printed on, but for the most part, these books sold or didn’t sell based on the old maxim that the customer is always right, and that customers are smart enough to inform themselves about products they purchase.  Apparently, LifeWay Christian Stores has started to doubt the ability of it’s customer base to decide what they like and don’t, and started offering its own opinion.

That’s right folks, just like those CDs you hid in your room with the “Parental Advisory” sticker, some books in LifeWay bookstores may be dangerous, and are labeled with a red sticker that warns “Read With Discernment” (as opposed to what I ask – coffee, beer, painkillers?).  Now, it’s pretty clear to me that LifeWay is bowing to pressure from some of the more ADM-minded people who either shop at their stores or have influence about company policy, and being the libertarian minded guy that I am, I would agree that they are completely within their rights to do this.  It’s their business, and they need to decide how to run it.  (I will note, though, that it does seem somewhat hypocritical to continue to sell a product you think dangerous enough to require a warning label).

As a service to LifeWay, I propose that they don’t stop at printing labels for these books.  I say why not do their customer base a favor and add warning labels to their entire inventory?  Here are few suggestions to get them started:

• Christian Music under “Pop/Rock” heading – Warning: The music on these CDs is highly derivative and over-produced.  Listening to more than one hour straight will cause you to want to kick small animals.
• Thomas Kinkade prints – Warning: Displaying these paintings in your house may cause you to be ridiculed by friends and family.  Plus, they will clash with your couch.
• Test-a-Mints Breath Mints – Warning: These mints may help the stench coming from your mouth, but they can’t help the darkness in your heart.  Additionally, these are really just Certs with Christian packaging.
• The Holy Bible – Warning: Taking this book too seriously will seriously f*** up your life.  Seriously, you probably shouldn’t even try to understand this on your own.  Try asking your pastor, or better yet, buy one of the LifeWay approved commentaries on sale now!

HT: Brant Hansen

Chapter 2: Get Down Your Harps

“Scripture renders a living, breathing, demanding personality, not a set of freestanding, self-evident, abstract, allegedly biblical propositions. Yet then again, a personality with whom we are in relationship obligates us, demands that we take our place in the relationship. In Jesus, salvation and vocation are linked. The pardon and freedom of salvation carries with it a summons. Friendship is inherently demanding, which is one reason why we have so few friends. A proposition asks only our intellectual assent to what makes sense to us. An abstraction or a generality, no matter how noble, will never move us to love or to give half of all we’ve got to the poor” (William Willimon, Who Will Be Saved?, 116)

“Sometimes the will of God is scary because he is asking us to choose between a life that looks successful and a life that is actually significant, between a life that wins the applause of our peers and a life that actually transforms lives through love” (Gary Haugen, Just Courage: God’s Great Expedition for the Restless Christian, 119)

“The LORD had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. “I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you,and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:1-3, NIV)

Rob Bell and Don Golden continue to insist, in chapter two, Get Down Your Harps, that God is interested in a relationship with his people. In this chapter, relationship is spoken of in terms of a marriage. They also continue to insist that God’s salvation is much bigger than we sometimes want to admit-and that it has always been much bigger than the people Israel wanted to admit-that it is for all. But I wonder if perhaps the authors of Jesus Wants To Save Christians are not hinting at something else in this chapter, something Christians tend to overlook, something we tend to, however inadvertently, neglect and despise. Get Down Your Harps…it does make me wonder if they are getting at something else. I’ll come back to this.

But, and here’s the thing, in my estimation if your mind is not steeped in the New Testament you are not likely to make the connections that Bell and Golden are making subtly and not overtly. I fully grant, they are asking the readers to read between the lines-maybe that’s why they chose such an odd format-and figure out what they are saying. They want us to think about it, they want us to remember the New Testament. They want us to put two and two together and imagine the only way possible for these things the prophets spoke of to happen. They don’t need to come right out and say it because the person whose mind is baptized in the New Testament will have already figured it out before the end of the first page of the chapter. Some may not like this. To me, it is the essence of a great sermon.

I think it is a brilliant strategy. Those who are experienced preachers know all too well that there are times when you build the intensity as you go along. African-American preachers (at least the ones I have had the joy of listening to) excel at this art. The preacher keeps giving hints, clues, adding a piece here and a piece there, stacking words upon words, images upon images; sentences and paragraphs become large canvases upon which to paint other sentences and paragraphs. You tie it in at this point and leave it dangle at that point. You regroup, retrace your steps, go back and repeat it all over again. The intensity builds like the steam in a pressure cooker. You hold the audience on the edge of the precipice until they cannot help but cry out the “Amen!” And then the preacher says, “Gotcha!” And the listener cannot help but draw the intended conclusion without the preacher even saying it. There’s no escape.

Bell and Golden follow the Old Testament in this respect: “And this is how the Hebrew Scriptures, also called the Old Testament, end. With all of these suspended promises, hanging there, unfulfilled, undone, waiting” (72). They build the intensity page after page after page and like good preachers leave us dangling, wanting more, hungering for what we already know to be true: “What if David had another son?” they ask. We already know the answer; they need not even say him. But this is no let down. This is no shock. This is no surprise. They have been doing this since the beginning of the chapter. In this regard, they simply follow the Old Testament pattern. The Old Testament left us dangling, sitting on the edge, waiting for the preacher to drop the bomb. The end of the Old Testament makes us want to read the New. It leaves us hungry and with an appetite for more. But it never quite gets us there. It’s that old saying, “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.” Ah, yes.

The mind steeped in the Scripture-they don’t quote a lot of Scripture verbatim in this chapter-will know exactly what they are getting at. But like good preachers in need of another sermon the next week, they leave us hungry and wanting more. We know the answer is Jesus. I couldn’t help myself as I read this chapter. Page 65, for example: A new exodus, “Jesus!”; a new way, “Jesus!”, a new marriage with a new covenant, “Jesus!”; a new city, “Jesus!”, with a new temple, “Jesus!” Or page 69: a Prince of Peace, “Jesus!”; David’s throne, “Jesus!”; servant, “Jesus!” Or page 68: like Moses, “Jesus!” Or page 70: who would crush all evil once and for all, “Jesus!” Or page 67: a new heavens and new earth, “Jesus!”; wolf and lamb feeding together, “Jesus!”; salvation to the ends of the earth, “Jesus!” As you read this chapter, if you are thinking about anything but Jesus, you have seriously missed the point of the chapter. Seriously.

Now, just a couple of final points in conclusion, and, obviously, I’m not commenting on every single aspect of the chapter. They are unfolding a theology for us, chapter by chapter, and theology takes its time. The other day, I hate to do this, one of the commenters here wrote this: “From what I could discern, there is little emphasis on redemption and a focus on curing the world’s ills. I fear a moving away from the gospel, death, burial, and resurrection, and a moving toward a humanitarian message. Humanitarian expressions are vital to showcase God’s love, but only the gospel message can elicit faith and a genuine conversion.” (Rick) This may well be true, but that is not the entire point of the book. The book is written to those whose faith has already been elicited, and not necessarily to those whose faith needs to be elicited. And to the point, after faith has been elicited (whatever that really means), what are we to do with it, what should God do with it? Leave it sit? Leave it stagnant? Or shouldn’t that faith get involved in the story that God is telling and involved in the work that God is doing?

The book is not even about ‘curing the world’s ills’ as much as it is about curing the church’s ills and reminding us that, in Willimon’s words, ‘salvation and vocation go hand in hand’ (paraphrase). If we suggest this series of theological sermons written to Christians is a move ‘away from the gospel’ (which necessarily includes, death, burial, and resurrection) then of course we are going to object to the content. But that’s just the thing about this book. Even if, and I’m not conceding for a minute they are, but even if the authors have interpreted the Scripture in a way that is not ‘reformed orthodoxy’ they have done no damage to Scripture’s intent. They followed the apostle Paul’s dictum that “these things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come” (1 Cor 10:11). They are not interpreting Scripture any differently than Paul did in Galatians when he wrote about Sarah and Hagar and Isaac and Ishmael and mountains and faith.

On the other hand, it is about redemption. It is about the New Exodus promised by Isaiah, Jeremiah and the prophets, Moses, David, the Psalms, and culminated in Jesus of Nazareth. They do not explore the ‘hows’ and ‘means’ of this yet because the Old Testament only gave hints and clues (1 Peter 1:10-12). But they do explore and explain the necessity of it, and the scope of it. It is this New Exodus that has offended some people, but it is there. Their job in the book is to remind us of the fact of our liberation, of our freedom, of our Exodus. They do a fine job of it, and point two below explores what they mean by this exodus they speak of.

Second, the authors talk about our bondage to sin. They describe this bondage as ‘Egypt’: “There’s an Egypt that we’re all born into, and that’s what we really need an exodus from. So when Isaiah speaks of this new exodus, he doesn’t just speak of liberation from a particular oppressive empire; he speaks of liberation from anything that oppresses anybody anywhere” (57). And they do a fine job of emphasizing the ‘all’. It’s what Karl Barth noted, “For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all” (as quoted in Willimon, p 38). This is also what the apostle Paul wrote, “All have sinned.” And just to clarify what Bell and Golden mean, “The real problem, the ultimate oppressor, is something that resides deep in every human heart. The real reason for their oppression is human slavery to violence, sin, and death” (57). That sounds strangely orthodox to me.

To go along with this is the emphasis that ‘All peoples will see it together’ (58, quoting Isaiah 40:5). The authors lay heavy emphasis on the fact that if all are held in bondage, all have equal access to freedom as God intended. This is the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12 and announced by Jesus early in his own ministry (Matthew 4:12-16). This chapter goes a long way to undoing any narrow ideas about salvation being limited to a particular nation or tribe: “By the rivers of Babylon, the prophets began to reimagine grace. They started to see what it would look like for Israel’s debt of sins to be paid. And what they saw was a reconciling grace so big, so universal, that it could bind all human beings into a brand-new way for the divine and the human to relate” (60-61, my emphasis). They thus rightly express this as possibility and not certainty. (Their argument is a little more detailed and contains much more Scripture, but I think this is the gist of their point. Some of you may wish to highlight other aspects of what they are saying, but rest assured, I did not personally pick up any hints whatsoever that this was a universal proposition guaranteeing salvation for everyone, everywhere. Thus the ‘could’.)

Finally, I’d like to explore their points about ‘marriage’ between God and man, the ‘forever’ aspect of the rule of the One to come, and what I’ll call the national reconciliation into one body of all all the peoples of the earth (Ephesians), but I don’t want this to be too long and any more cumbersome than it is already is. Their point about an ‘altar being built in Egypt’ is an excellent point and I think properly echoes what the New Testament says about Jesus in Philippians 2 and Revelation 7. Suffice it to say that these were the expectations, written in the prophets, that are easily overlooked and ignored. A fitting conclusion to these is found on pages 70-71, “What started as predictions about an earthly ruler exploded into an expectation of a divinely sent servant who would in some powerful new way rule forever…Israel’s failed marriage to God had never produced that child….The promise is so poignant because from the beginning, from the first moments when our primal ancestors began longing for a way out of this mess we’re in, the ache had centered around the birth of one who would crush evil forever.”

That is a very, very orthodox interpretation of Scripture (and I can point you to the lectures that prove it.)

I will close with this. The title, Get Down Your Harps, indicates that the harps had been hung up, left desolate, forgotten; put on a shelf and silent. “They hung up their harps” (52). “The harp was an instrument of joy and celebration. People played the harp because they had reason to praise God” (52). This chapter begins by reminding us that we have been rescued. “If God freed people once before, couldn’t God do it again?” (54) The implication being, of course, that He already has! He has freed us! We have a reason to be playing our harps! And we are still acting like we are in exile; our harps are still hanging, we are still weeping beside the waters of Babylon.

Or worse, we are like the older brother who refused to go in and rejoice with the family when the younger brother came home. Or we are like Jonah who sat outside Ninevah angry at God for being forgiving. I certainly doubt we are like Jesus who wept over the lost Jerusalem. Whatever the case, I think Bell and Golden’s point in this chapter is to say: “Get down your harps! God has freed us! You know how he did it! You know who did it! Get down your harps, you Christians, and start singing, rejoicing, and worshiping God! Join the party!”

Like good preachers, they don’t say it in so many words. But we know who they are talking about on every single page.

Jesus.

Tags: book review, Don Golden, Gary Haugen, Jesus Christ, Jesus Wants to Save Christians, Just Courage, Karl Barth, rob bell, The New Exodus, Who Will be Saved?, William Willimon

OK, I’m a sensitive guy.

Really.

But this whole ultra-sensitivity thing that’s been going on the past decade or so is driving me bonkers.  This week, I read a story that was reminiscent of some peoples’ reaction to The Passion of the Christ, complaining about the violence and dubbing it The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre.

It seems that a crucifix, which has been on display at St. John’s Church in West Sussex (GB) since the sixties has been removed by the church.  Why?

‘The crucifix expressed suffering, torment, pain and anguish. It was a scary image, particularly for children.

‘Parents didn’t want to walk past it with their kids, because they found it so horrifying.
‘It wasn’t a suitable image for the outside of a church wanting to welcome worshippers. In fact, it was a real put-off.

Yes, the cross is frightening to people, particularly children.

Rev Ewen Souter said the traditional Christian symbol was frightening children and that it would be replaced with a modern, stainless steel cross.

I’ve often wondered at how sanitized we’ve made the cross, and how much of the punch of what it represents gets lost on us, as a result.  What if we, instead, had little guillotines on our necklaces?  Or an electric chair in the spotlights on the front of our church buildings?  Or polished bronze syringes & needles above our baptistries?  Or little gallows figures on top of the communion tray covers?

According to Rev. Souter

‘We’re all about hope, encouragement and the joy of the Christian faith. We want to communicate good news, not bad news, so we need a more uplifting and inspiring symbol than execution on a cross.’

In one sense, I will agree with Rev. Souter – I think that all too often we Christians become so obsessed with the cross (Jesus’ death) that we forget the true “uplifting and inspiring symbol” given to us by Jesus – the empty tomb.  Perhaps, instead of adorning our churches with empty crosses – literally and sometimes figuratively – we’d be more accurate by decorating them with a stone that has been rolled away…