No inn in the story, no stable in the nativity scene.

It is sometimes difficult to distinguish tradition from Scripture, maybe never more so than in the case of the Christmas story. Here's one tidbit that I find interesting:

As tradition goes, at least in the movies, and often times in our Christmas Pageants, Joseph and Mary came into Bethlehem on Christmas night, hurriedly dragging a donkey with Mary riding while enduring contractions. Upon arrival, Joseph frantically goes from inn to inn in the great metropolis of Bethlehem knocking on doors only to get turned away again and again. And, at the last possible moment, a little old lady directs them to a stable because there's no room in any of the inns. Fun story, but merely a fun tradition.

It's more likely that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem with plenty of time to get there before the baby was born, probably weeks or even months ahead of time. Remember that this is where Joseph's family was from, otherwise he would not have gone there in response to the decree of Caesar. I'm going back to Indiana tomorrow, where I'm from, and will stay with my family, not in an inn. At least the scallywags had better not send me to an inn.

Because there were lots of out-of-town family members showing up for the census, there was no room in the κατάλυμα by the time Joseph and Mary arrived. A κατάλυμα, for Luke, was most likely the guest room in the relative's house, not an inn. As a matter of fact, without hesitation we translate κατάλυμα as it is used in Luke 22:11 as a guest room meaning a part of the house.

So, Joseph and Mary likely stayed in the common room of a house (in lieu of the occupied guest room) with several people, where animals were sometimes brought in out of the cold, where there happened to be a manger, where Jesus was born.

I really enjoy getting to the details of biblical stories. There was probably no inn in the little town of Bethlehem. Joseph and Mary probably didn't even go to the stables. And Jesus was probably born in the common room of a relative's house and placed in a manger.

Here's the nativity scene in my house as I write. Yes . . . I know . . . the exegetes among you will want to critique additional details in this scene.

Merry Christmas!

Missional & Faith Communities

Check out this new video explaining the relationship between Missional and Faith Communities with Mountain Community.

καὶ κατανοῶμεν ἀλλήλους εἰς--Hebrews 10:24

It is not uncommon for preachers to use Hebrews 10:25 as an exhortation to the congregation to get themselves to the Sunday morning meeting. I may have done that myself at some point. Upon closer examination, this seems to limit the depth of the exhortation. Actually, the main verb controlling this verse, κατανοῶμεν, is in verse 24. It is in the subjunctive mood, classified particularly as a hortatory subjunctive which gives it the sense of an imperative. It is then translated thus: “let us consider.”

Most English translations translate παροξυσμὸν of verse 24 as an infinitive, thus “to stir.” It’s not actually an infinitive. It is the object of the preposition εἰς, which here might be translated something like “for the purpose of.”

Both love and good works are genitive nouns which seem to me most likely objective as παροξυσμὸν, the lead noun, is a verbal noun.

The translation of verse 24 could then be something like this: “Also let us consider one another for the purpose of the provocation of love and good works…”

Clearly the main verbal action here is “consider” one another. Love and good works is then not limited to stirring “others” up, it is that these actions be provoked in “reciprocal” ways. Verse 25 tells us what is critical for this to take place, namely that we not neglect the meeting together.

It is worth noting that NIV translates in such a way that ἐγκαταλείποντες (neglecting) is treated like another hortatory subjunctive verb, thus giving it force equal to the command to consider one another. NIV translates thus: “Let us not neglect…”(v. 25a). However, it is not a verb and therefore not hortatory. This is a participle with a negative particle controlling it so it translates: “not neglecting.” Not neglecting what? Not neglecting the meeting. Why? So we can have a big crowd on Sunday morning? No. It is so we can have appropriate means to “consider” one another. Again, it should be stressed that “consider” is the action commanded.

The meeting must be of such a nature that it engenders provocation of love and good works among all who are members one of another. We should teach this passage in such a way that exhorts our congregations to “consider one another.” The meeting together is the place where provocation to love and good works happens. The meeting then should be of such a character that it easily provokes reciprocal love and good works that are tangible. I submit that meetings in addition to Sunday morning and of a different nature are required for this “consideration” to appropriately take place.

Every-member participation meetings are the norm for Mountain Community.

Christology->Missiology->Ecclesiology

 I attended a three-day SynergyIGNITE conference addressing the development of "missional communities" last week. It was a good conference. It helped me to put language to what Mountain Community is doing and experiencing as we follow the Lord's leading; it also affirmed our efforts and the struggle. The conference was mostly geared toward traditional largerish churches changing their direction from an emphasis on providing consumer products (eg., self-serving programs and a professional Sunday morning show) to sending disciples out to make disciples in places where not-yet-disciples live, work, and play. Mountain Community is a bit different. We started out missionally. The Mountain Community mission was missional from the beginning. Even though we don't have painful transitions to incur, we have incurred suspicion from the church at large, tension with church planting networks, and a very difficult learning curve in which we still abide. One of the topics discussed at the conference was the need for Christology to define our Missiology which in turn defines our Ecclesiology. I would like to mull this over a bit more, both biblically and historically.

In recent history, the chain has been reversed to Ecclesiology determining Missiology defining Christology. A church expression is assumed based on tradition and then we start with, "oops, we have huge maintenance project providing these programs and a big Sunday show," then our mission becomes "create a financial engine to perpetuate it" and Christology then is prone to error through an inappropriate view of the church and its mission. There was a good deal of honesty at the conference that the mission becomes "drag them in" so we can continue to justify and finance what we're doing.

Biblically, Matt 16:13-20 addresses the paradigm to arrive at ecclesiology. Christolgy, vs. 16: Jesus is the Christ, the son of Living God. He has the authority to set the mission. Missiology, vs. 13 with portions of 18: The Gates of Hades was located in Caesarea Philipi. It was a rocky cave, one of the two primary sources of the Jordan River. It was also a place of worship to pagan gods, particularly Pan. Lewd sexual things were done here to entice the gods of Hades to provide water which was associated with fertility. So, I suspect that when Jesus said "on this rock" (without diminishing the importance on the petra/petros word-play) he was also saying "right here" and "in places like this." It's the place where people are in bondage to things that impose death. Here the gates of Hades (not the gates of Hell as some translations hold) means death. Ergo, the church's mission is to rescue people from death in the place where forces of death enslave people. Ecclesiology: Those places are transformed through the church's (i.e., missional communities) presence in those places. The church should remain quick and nimble. The church's financial engine serves the mission at the Gates of Hades. This provides a clear picture of Christology: This is what Jesus did and does and where he does it.

Historically, I don't see the "kind" of emphasis on a Sunday morning event we see at present. (I'm not saying there should be no Sunday morning event. How we typically do it and emphasize it I do question.) At the conference, we used the pre-A.D. 310 period of church, which was as yet untainted by Constantine's influences in the areas of hierarchy, basilicas, formal proceedings, and etc. I don't know of any post-A.D. 70/pre-A.D 310 evidence of church behavior that could have developed into a huge and highly resourced every Sunday morning event apart from the Constantinian influence.

I find the second-century church at Rome a great example of a conglomeration of missional communities thriving apart from a large event. The prefect Rusticas attempted to locate the approximately 15,000-member church in Rome in A.D. 165 by interrogating Justin Martyr, but could not. Here's the exchange:

Then the prefect, Rusticus, demanded: “Where do you meet?” 

“Wherever it is each one’s preference or opportunity,” said Justin. “In any case, do you suppose we can all meet in the same place?” 

Rusticus pressed him, no doubt for information that might compromise others: “Tell me, where do you meet? In what place?” 

Justin said, “I have been living above the baths of [text corrupt] for the entire period of my sojourn at Rome … and I have known no other meeting place but here. Anyone who desired could come to my residence, and I would give to him the words of truth.”

I think this is very interesting. The church was invisible in a way, but unavoidable in another.

I'm super excited with the direction the Lord is leading his church; in it we still have some hard questions to reckon with. In our generation, it's difficult to imagine what the church can and should be without out emphasizing the Sunday morning event as it is and as the priority. We tend to protect our regular, large, and highly resourced events, but I wonder if we should? Maybe it's impossible to emulate this period of history or a close biblical precedent, but maybe it's not. Maybe it's unnecessary to emulate this period of history and a close biblical precedent, but maybe it is. Maybe it's pragmatic to use the largerish prioritized Sunday morning event to create a financial engine to support our missional communities, but maybe we're missing another way. Will you wrestle with this along with me without taking offense at the asking of these questions?

Rapture smapture!

OH NO...only 2 more days! They say he's coming back on May 21.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/18/tick-tock-goes-the-doomsday-clock/

Aside from the obvious . . . that Jesus said "But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only" (Matt 24:36), does this match your own conception of The Day? Apart from setting a calendar day, I think Evangelical Christianity is all too prone to jump on this same "rapture bandwagon." Here are a couple of passages typically used to support "rapture":

1 Thessalonians 4:13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, [4] that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

What if this is a triumphal entry that mimics a Roman triumphal entry, or one similar to Jesus' entry into Jerusalem on a donkey? The kind where people run out to meet the conqueror and usher him back into the city . . . not the kind where everybody leaves.

Matthew 24:40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming.

To be sure, there's a separation happening here. Some will go and some will stay, but who's leaving and who's staying? This text doesn't specify. Matthew 13 specifies:

41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

&

49 So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The way I read . . . it's the lawbreakers who will go. In this, the Romans 8 promise of the renewal of all things finds it's fulfillment. And, the Ephesians 1:10 promise of the reunion of heaven (God's presence) and earth finds its fulfillment.  And, the Revelations 21 promise of God coming "down" with the bride to dwell with men finds its fulfillment.

I wonder what all the rapture believing folks will do with their prepaid "after the rapture pet care" when the find themselves happily residing in a renewed creation with God.

Seek the Lord and Live (Amos 5)

This is my last Amos post. The majority of Amos hits us pretty hard and leaves us asking the question, "so what can we do about it?" In chapter 5, we find the answer to this question. Chapter 5 is presented in two sections, each of them a chiastic structure. The first looks like this:

 a. Judgment described (5:1-3)

  b.  Seek the Lord (5:4-6)

  c. Injustice described (5:7)

  d.  Hear a sovereign God (5:8-9)

  c’. Injustice described (5:10-13)

  b.’  Seek the Lord (5:14-15)

 a’. Judgment described (5:16-17)

This chiasm describes the coming judgment, the prescribed repentance (i.e., Seek the Lord), and the injustices that provoked the curses of Deuteronomy 28:15 ff. Who has the authority to call out against the standard (remember the plumb line of 7:7-9)? It is God. Of course people question God's judgments, but this chiasm brings the discussion to the sovereignty of God . . . he does not need to consult us.

In all of this, the Lord answers our "what can we do about it" question like this: "Seek the Lord and live." When we set our life's direction to seek the Lord, we will hate evil, love good, and establish justice (vss. 5, 6, 14, 15). We do not do these things to seek the Lord (though we might see him in spectacular ways while doing them), rather these are manifestations in our lives because we seek the Lord. (This is not an exact distinction, but helps us understand the primary pursuit, i.e., the Lord over the works.) Conversely, if we seek wealth, power, and self-gratification, then oppression, whether directly or indirectly, even if unintentionally, will be the manifestation.

Forgoing the layout of the second chiasm, the central point of the second section shows up as repentance, a command to turn away from religious hypocrisy (vss. 21-23, 25, 26) to justice and righteousness (vs. 24).

The answer "what can we do about it" the same today:

• SEEK first the kingdom of God and his righteousness (Matthew 6:33).
• Ask, and it will be given to you; SEEK, and you will find; knock and it will be opened to you (Matthew 7:7).

More about this SEEKING in ensuing blogs.

You Fat Cows (Amos 4)

Warning! The following language is exclusively reserved for use by prophets of old; don't try this at home. Chapter 4 of Amos begins thus:

   "Hear this word, you cows of Bashan . . ."

The grazing land at Bashan was as good as it got. The cattle found there were the fattest and sleekest in the land. Every Israelite understood what Amos was saying; they heard it like this, "Here this word, you fat cows . . . ." He had this to say specifically to the women of the elite families.


God hated Israel's consumerism and their methods for sustaining it. As Amos describes it, the women of the elite in Israel prodded their husbands to bring more and more home for their consumption. They lived an opulent lifestyle with beds of ivory, couches, a diet of red meat, entertainment, wine aplenty, the finest oils (6:4-6), and multiple houses (3:1). This indulgence in itself was bad enough, but how they acquired it made it all the worse.


Specifically, the Israeli elite acquired their disproportionate amount of consumer goods through these methods:

1. fines and debts (2:8).
2. taxation (5:11).
3. cheating the poor (8:4-6).

With this going on, any tithe, offering, thanksgiving, or worship of any kind was rejected and despised by God (4:4-5; 5:21-23).

I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies" (5:21).

We must check ourselves as a nation. Do we have consumption habits that affects the rest of the world? Check ourselves as individuals. Do we have consumption habits that make us unable to respond appropriately to the poor and the afflicted near us? We do not want to be included among . . .

". . . those who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth and turn aside the way of the afflicted . . ." (2:7).

Hang in there, the blog on chapter 5 will be more positive. Until then, here's a thought provoking accounting of consumption in our country, The Story of Stuff:

Violence and Robbery (Amos 3)

 “They do not know how to do right,” declares the Lord,
“those who store up violence and robbery in their strongholds” (Amos 3:10).

     Violence, robbery, quarrels, murder, war . . . these stem from wanting what we do not have (James 4:1, 2). Of course, there are appropriate ways to acquire what we do not have, but, unfortunately, Israel gave us the example of acquiring inappropriately. Israel resorted to violence and robbery. They had their winter houses and summer houses made of ivory that had to be maintained. It took massive resources to maintain lavish accommodations and those resources had to come from somewhere. The folks who could afford to have these types of homes were taxing, fining, oppressing and neglecting the poor to get what they needed to sustain their lifestyle. 
     So bad were conditions in Israel that the Lord called upon ungodly neighbors and the Mosaic Law to bear witness to judgment. He called upon Ashdod and Egypt to gather around and look at the confusion and the oppression (vs. 9). He also called attention to the Law to show that he was not responsible for the downfall; Israel herself was responsible. The Law stated that if livestock was put in the care of a neighbor that, in the case of losing the animal, the caretaker was responsible for the loss (supposing they may have eaten it themselves or sold it) unless he could produce a torn piece of the animal to prove that wild animals attacked it (Exodus 22:13).  Enough evidence would remain to prove that it was not God's neglect or injustice that led to Israel's downfall, but rather her violence and robbery.
     We've been laying alongside Israel some of our own country's involvement in parallel behaviors. We've actually seen that a few evil people with a lot of power, money and legal protection can cause a lot of violence and robbery. Here's another clip from John Perkins that shows how things escalate to violence and robbery.

You're the WORST!

Amos begins his message to Israel ensnaring them into understanding the same truth that the Lord had shown him against a plumb line. He leads up to Israel's sin with a 3-4 beat. Take a few moments to read Amos 1:3-2:5 noting both the redundancy of the 3-and-4  statements and the individual sins of the nations that surrounded Israel.

At each beat, Amos announces the sins of Israel's neighbors, some of which were transgressions against Israel herself. They would have remembered these transgressions and would have been in full agreement with God's pronouncements. Let's take a quick look at these sins:

1. Damascus: "threshed Gilead" . . . they cruelly crushed the Israelites.
2. Gaza (i.e., Philistia): "exiled a whole people" . . . they sold them into slavery.
3. Tyre (i.e., Phoenicia): "delivered a whole people to Edom" . . . they sold them into slavery.
4. Edom: "pursued his brother with a sword" . . . these descendants of Esau, Israel's brother, fought against their own relatives.
5. Ammon: "ripped open pregnant women in Gilead" . . . these, more relatives of Israel, in war, greedy for territory, did heinous things to Israel.
6. Moab: "burned to lime the bones of the king of Edom" . . . these, again relatives of Israel, apparently desecrated the dead.
7. Judah: "rejected the law of the Lord."

Realize this, as Israel read or heard this prophecy, they would have been expecting the culmination of the 3-and-4 pattern to bring them to the point. They probably started off by agreeing with Amos . . . saying something like "yeah Lord, do what you gotta do to them." They might have become confused though, when he went beyond Edom, the 4th country listed. The prophecy didn't culminate with the 4 sins of one country of these neighbors. . . each of these countries had only one sin listed. It wasn't 4 countries . . . there were 7 listed before themselves. 


The Lord compared Israel to the nations around her essentially pointed out that she was worse than the rest. Israel had these four sins listed:

1. "trample the head of the poor" . . . exploit and abuse the poor.
2. "turn aside the way of the afflicted" . . . neglect the downtrodden and helpless.
3. "go into the same girl" . . . exploit women via prostitution. Poor women were likely forced to enter into prostitution at the temples for financial subsistence.
4. "lay themselves down beside every alter on garments taken in pledge" (see Ex 22:26) and "in the house of their God they drink the wine of those who have been fined" . . . both of these statements indicated the use ill-gotten gain in worship and self indulgence.

We know that the Lord hates these things, so we check ourself at how we treat the poor . . . at home and in neighboring nations.

Hear what this guy has to say about how Western corporations treat the poor:

A Plumb Line In Our Midst

Thursday night we began a series in Amos. We began in chapter seven. In chapter seven, God reveals his message for Israel to Amos.

And the Lord said to me, “Amos, what do you see?” And I said, “A plumb line.” Then the Lord said,

“Behold, I am setting a plumb line
in the midst of my people Israel . . . (v.8)

God shows Amos Israel's faults against a true standard . . . God's own truth about social justice and righteousness. God's message is not to an individual, but to a nation. It's difficult for Westerners to view things apart from individuality. We are radically individualistic. In this study, we are going to compare ourselves as a nation to the nation of Israel. In Amos we can see what God loves and hates about national behaviors when it comes to social justice and righteousness. 


Israel, the northern ten tribes, at this time had several stark similarities to our present-day USA. She was just over 200 years old as a nation. She was at the height of her prosperity. And, surrounding countries had reasons to be displeased with her. 


In the coming weeks, we will look at the specific sins of Israel that brought the judgment of exile on her, and compare them to ourselves . . . Israel's experience with God will be our plumb line.
Christians often recognize national sin in abortion, pornography and homosexuality. We are going to take a look at two specific sins that we will recognize in Israel: 1) social injustice and 2) the idolatry of consumerism.


Here a few links to resources that we'll use to assess the condition of our nation:

• Story of Stuff
• Economic Hitman Video
• Confessions of an Economic Hitman