Time for a New National Anthem?

In light of recent events, maybe we need a new national anthem. I nominate this one.

A Hedge or a Sword?

Hedgerows are a part of the history of humankind. They have been around since the Bronze Age, although many of the older hedgerows found today in Europe were first planted during Roman times.

They made life a living hell for soldiers of the Allied armies trying to break out of the Normandy beachhead in WW2. The hedgerows that they encountered, called bocage by the French, consisted of small, irregularly shaped fields, measuring only about 200 by 400 meters, enclosed by ancient, overgrown hedges that grow from earthen mounds flanked by drainage ditches.

These hedgerows surrounding the fields were four to ten feet thick, grew up to 15 feet high, limiting visibility to one field at a time, and were impenetrably dense — even for tanks. They formed a thousand square miles of tough patchwork terrain, connected by a network of dirt roads sunken far below field level.

The idea of a hedge is found in the writings of the Rabbis. They surrounded the law with a hedge, a body of interpretations, expansions, and applications of the Law that they came to regard as of divine origin. Look at this example from the Mishnah:

Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua; Joshua to the elders; the elders to the prophets; and the prophets handed it down to the men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around the Torah (Pirke Aboth, 1:1).

Incidentally, the word translated fence is a mishnaic hebrew word (סיג) for wall, fence, or a thick hedge.

Since you could inadvertently break the Law, we find the principle of “putting a hedge around the Law,” not to protect it, but to provide a margin of safety. Whatever one thought right to do, the oral Torah provided a margin of error. Any commandment was an opportunity to show one’s obedience. For Jesus this kind of scrupulous observance would only lead to a neglect of the major points of the Law. It is inevitable that there was an over-concentration on the manageable, the visual and perceptible things of the law—to the neglect of the weightier matters:

‘Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practised the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel (Matt. 23:23-24).

Speaking to the city of Jerusalem through the Prophet Isaiah, God likens the city of Jerusalem to the planting of a vineyard:

Let me sing for my beloved

my love-song concerning his vineyard:

My beloved had a vineyard

on a very fertile hill.

He dug it and cleared it of stones,

and planted it with choice vines;

he built a watchtower in the midst of it,

and hewed out a wine vat in it;

he expected it to yield grapes,… (Isaiah 5:1-2)

The problem? quite simply:

...but it yielded wild grapes (Isaiah 5:2b)

The wild grapes, according the metaphor, are the sins and unrighteous acts of the people:

For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts

is the house of Israel,

and the people of Judah

are his pleasant planting;

he expected justice,

but saw bloodshed;

righteousness,

but heard a cry! (Isaiah 5:7)

Because they refused to turn away from the sins and crimes, God made a promise:

And now I will tell you

what I will do to my vineyard.

I will remove its hedge,

and it shall be devoured;

I will break down its wall,

and it shall be trampled down. (Isaiah5:5)

Hedges are meant for protection, either on a literal or metaphorical level. But I notice that a sense of complacency often occurs among those living inside a building, vineyard, or city protected by a hedge. God uses the hedge as a metaphor for his protection, by breaking down the hedge he allows the enemy to pour in to execute judgment.

What struck me is that I, like many people, often pray for a hedge of protection for myself and others. I’m not so sure that is the best use of that metaphor. I would agree that there are times when we need protection, but that is a passive approach to living the Christian life. I think Paul has a better approach:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armour of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled round your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.
16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people (Ephesians 6:10-18).

Sort of reminds me of Nehemiah’s instructions to carry a sword in on hand and trowel in the other (Nehemiah 4:16-18).

So, the question is, do live behind a hedge, or do we follow Christ, in full panoply, ready for the day?

After Bailout, AIG Executives Head to Resort

This was in the Washington Post

Nate

After Bailout, AIG Executives Head to Resort

UPDATED: 11:31 a.m.
Less than a week after the federal government offered an $85 billion bailout to insurance giant AIG, the company held a week-long retreat for its executives at the luxury St. Regis Resort in Monarch Beach, Calif., running up a tab of $440,000, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said today at the the opening of a House committee hearing about the near-failure of the insurance giant.
Showing a photograph of the resort, Waxman said the executives spent $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for meals and $23,000 for the spa.
"Less than a week after the taxpayers rescued AIG, company executives could be found wining and dining at one of the most exclusive resorts in the nation," Waxman said. "We will ask whether any of this makes sense. "

While AIG was at the bar begging and drooling for money, this is one of the things that AIG did to battle the crisis:

Those documents show that as the company's risky investments began to implode, the company altered its generous executive pay plan to pay out regardless of such losses.

This is like having overdraft protection on your checking account without worrying about having to repay it if you do overdraw.

Nice.

What is also interesting are some of the comments posted by readers of the article in question. Basically most of what is said is that Congress should do something about it, pass laws, go after them, all that. I agree, Congress should do something about it.

But the question remains, why are we pouring money into symptoms instead of addressing the problem? The problem is a philosophy that says that "every course of action should have the potential to make money from it." It's okay to make money, but this philosophy shifts moral and ethical boundaries.

For example. some will say we should address the issue of global warming, but one of the primary consideration is how to make a profit from it? A friend of mine decided that he could make a lot of money by going green, marketing products and services. He set up a blog, went into business, but it didn't happen. What did happen is that all the reading and investigating that he did to understand this issue caused him to undergo a radical transformation, and he is now solidly green. He still wants to make money from the issue, but his philosophy drives his world view and his ethics and his mission, and he is a better person for it.

Another problem with yelling to congress to fix the problem is that we abdicate our own responsibility in the issue. Congress, like those in leadership at AIG, Bear Stearns and all the other companies have one issue that drives them --Power. Because of this, they manipulate people to achieve and retain that power, market fear and assess blame when things don't go well. The result is that we have our options severely limited and dictated to us, which as we have seen are not real options at all.

And if the "leadership" doesn't deliver or produce, what do we do? We throw them out and put another bunch of leaders in place, who turn out in the long run to be no different then the bunch we threw out earlier.

The focus is then on the problems that need to be solved. We want solutions and answers, people who can articulate the problems, but who will in the long run dominate the conversations.

They will be people who are defined by their self-interests, and power will eventually be lumped into the hands of a selected few who have too much vested interest in the outcome of the problem.

We buy into the illusion that after we find the guilty part and assess blame, we can then legislate or change policy or somehow mandate morality. It hasn't happened yet, why believe that it eventually will?

So things have to change. Acting morally is not the same as being moral. Individuals feel they have no power or voice in these issues. People will gather under the auspices of someone (usually with some vested interest in the issue), ostensibly giving them a voice, but are offered options that only fit into interests and goals of the person or persons in charge.

How to do this is another conversation for another post. I would suggest reading Community: The Structure of Belonging by Peter Block.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Lehman Bros head took home $300m

BBC NEWS | Lehman Bros head took home $300m
(Posted using ShareThis)

This is the subhead of an article on the BBC News website.

"The head of failed US investment bank Lehman Brothers has told Congress that he took home about $300m in pay and bonuses over the past eight years."

There are other little gems in this article, such as:

"Mr Waxman also criticised Mr Fuld for requesting multi-million dollar bonuses for departing executives just days before last month's collapse."

"In other words," he added, "even as Mr Fuld was pleading with [Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson for a federal rescue, Lehman continued to squander millions on executive compensation."

"To restore our economy to health, two steps are necessary," he said. "First, we must identify what went wrong. Then we must enact real reform of our financial markets."

I can think of a couple of things that might have caused "what went wrong".

And just to show where the American candidates stand on the issue, here is their response:

US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has attacked John McCain's links to a 1980s financial scandal.

He also accused his Republican rival of being more focused on running a smear campaign than on fixing the US economy.
It comes after Mr McCain's running mate Sarah Palin accused Mr Obama over the weekend of associating with terrorists.

Along the same vein, check out this chart in the NYTimes. (HT to Nate)

I could wax eloquent on this, but why waste the bandwidth? I think one of America's greatest philosophers said it best:

An interesting video

Found this video on a website called Connaitre Dieu. It is a great metaphor for the love of God.

I'm Moving...

No, I'm not leaving France,  but I am moving my blog to my own domain. You can find it here, but there are only a couple of things there right now which you can probably find here as well. I will probably take a couple of months to switch, but I will keep posting here until I get the whole thing set up.

More on "Missions? Missional?"

In a previous post I shared a discussion I had with someone about the idea of missions in the church.

I want to take another look at one of these points: 
4. The French, the .... (fill in the blank) had their chance.
The premise is that France, Europe, etc., has had a chance to hear the gospel but rejected it, so now we want to go where they will be open to the gospel.

My question is, where would that be?  Europe has rejected the gospel, yes, but it is responding to it, though slowly. As my wife has also pointed out, when exactly did the French reject the gospel?  In the eighth century? 17th century? During the French Revolution? Recently? Did everyone do it? Just a few? Did someone pass a law to that effect?

How about China, they've rejected the gospel, shall we cross them off our list? China is closed, but it was a major missions field until the communist takeover in 1949. The new government then expelled all Christian missionaries from their borders. Yet Christianity is growing rapidly.

Perhaps Eastern Europe? It was closed to missionaries and the gospel for many years during the communist hegemony, but now it is once again open.

Or maybe the Middle East and North Africa? Everyone knows that people of Islamic background faith are resistant to the gospel, so perhaps we should not invest time and people to share the gospel with them?

If we shake the dust off our feet, and seek a place to go where people will be open to the gospel, I think that pretty much limits us to Antarctica.

And what of the United States? Is the gospel received in this country? I think it is obvious that the church is losing ground in the United States. Yet we are willing to plant new churches. According to the premise stated above, this seems counter-intuitive.

I find these facts interesting:

“Fifty-nine percent of U.S. congregations have fewer than one hundred regular participants, counting both adults and children; 71 percent have fewer than one hundred regularly participating adults”
"10 percent of U.S. congregations—the largest ones—contain half of the nation’s churchgoers."

So, if we are consistent in following our original premise, why start a church plant when this country is rejecting the gospel? Aren't there enough churches now that we have to start a new one?

I think this points to the fact that the church in the US has a less than adequate understanding of what it means to be missional, or to be in missions. And when the church is at odds to the world and can only expect enmity, what makes us think we can find anywhere that the gospel will be welcomed?

Technorati Tags: emerging,kingdom,missional,leadership