Sojourners, Widows & Orphans

A summary of Sunday evening's teaching:

We looked at several Scriptures on Sunday. I wanted to demonstrate that Scripture is replete with concern for the Sojourner, Widow and Orphan. By looking at each of these Scriptures we can see that God's concern for these people is demonstrated in the Law, the Prophets, the Writings and the New Testament.

God himself is their champion:

• Ex :22:21-24
• Duet 10:18,19
• Ps 146:8-10
• Prov 23:10-12

God champions their cause through his people:

• The Law commands; what is designated is sacred -- Duet 26:12-14.
• The Prophets reiterate the commands -- Is 1:16; Jer 22:3; Mal 3:5-7.
• The Law appeals to the memory of God's people; they too were sojourners -- Ex 23:6-9.
• The Law commands God's people to love the sojourner -- Lev 19:33-34.
• This is how we love people . . . right? -- 1 John 3:16-18.
• The New Testament demonstrates the enduring importance of taking care of this group of people -- James 1:27.

Upon creating the nation that would be God's people, God instituted the following methods to care for these people and other categories of down-and-out people:

• The every-third-year tithe -- Duet 14:28, 29.
• Gleaning privileges -- Duet 24:19-22.
• The land Sabbath -- Ex 23:10-12.
• Don't charge interest -- Lev 25:35-38.
• Release from servitude -- Duet 15:1-18.
• Jubilee -- Lev 25:8-17
• Kinsman Redemption -- Duet 25:5, 6.

Here's the question: Seeing God's unchanging heart for the Sojourner, Widow and Orphan, how do we, as God's people, respond today?

10 Commandments for Possibility Thinkers for everyone

I saw the below "10 Commandments for Possibility Thinkers" framed in our central county school office today and then found them on the internet. These commandments encouraged me. I thought, "hey, there might be other risk takers out there that scare and even offend people." Maybe I'm not as alone as I sometimes feel. I hope these resonate with some of you as well.

1. You will never vote NO to any idea because "It's impossible."
2. You will never block a helpful thought because it entails problems, or wait to begin until you find a solution to every problem.
3. You will never oppose a possibility because you've never done it and can't imagine how it could be done.
4. You will never obstruct a plan because it runs a risk of failure.
5. You will never cooperate in defeating a potentially good suggestion because you can see something wrong with it.
6. You will never quench a creative idea because no one else has succeeded in perfecting it.
7. You will never declare any constructive concept to be impossible because you lack the time, money, brains, energy, talent or skill to exploit it.
8. You will never discard a plan or a project just because it's imperfect.
9. You will never resist a proposal because you didn't think of it, you won't get the credit, you won't personally benefit from it, or you may not live to see and enjoy it.
10. You will never quit because you've reached the end of the rope.  Tie a knot and hang on.
Start dreaming!  Be sure to make your dreams big enough for God to fit in!

Tithing

A summary of our teaching from Sunday night was essentially this:

The Jews were obligated by the Law to tithe by giving of a tenth of their produce and livestock annually to the Levites, to consume a tenth of their own produce and livestock annually before the Lord at festivals in Jerusalem, and to give a tenth of their produce and livestock every third year to be put in the storehouse for the sojourners, orphans, and widows. On an annual basis, the Law prescribed tithe calculates out to 23.33% of produce and livestock. Here are the passages that prescribes these tithes:

I think that from this we learn the kinds of things God loves for us to give to:

• The Levitical system--drawing attention to his Glory and teaching people about himself.
• The festival tithe--reminding us that he loves to provide for us and wants us to enjoy and be thankful for what he provides.
• The landless--sojourner, orphan, and widow. 

As Christians, we do not have a system like the one prescribed in the Law, but we do give generously to the things that God loves.

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?