Dynamic Yet Consistent

Grandpa and Grandma with their 3 great-grandchildren: Mikayla, Luke and Chase

Today has been an odd day for me.  Despite the fact it has been quite mundane, it has been emotionally draining.  My grandfather was just moved to hospice and the doctors think we are talking days instead of weeks or months.  Grandpa was diagnosed with leukemia 17 years ago and has gone through many other life threatening illnesses, yet has always been a fighter.  Even though we have been called up to make our “last visits” several times, this time really seems different.  At the same time, my father is in town and has been immensely enjoying his time with Mikayla (he was planning on going to backpacking, but given the recent news has decided to divert to Chicago).

Dad and I had a pretty lazy day today.  We cooked some soup for a friend who just had a baby and we watched a few documentaries.  We actually spent most of the day just sitting around talking about memories and entertaining the most alert and cheerful 4 month old in the world.

It is this juxtaposition of new life and possible death that has me a bit melancholy and pensive.  I am spending time with my dad as he thinks about the possible loss of his.  He is spending time being energized by the life of his grand-daughter while I am contemplating the loss of my own grand-father.  We talked expectantly about what Mikayla’s life will hold for her as we reflect on the meaning and significance of grandpa’s life.  Every song on the radio seems to have the power to call up painful realities, or hopeful possibilities.

I could wax on about the frailty of life and the interconnectedness of all people. I could go into detail about my love for my daughter and my love for my grandfather and how each stage of life refines and expands that love.  I could focus on one and ignore the other.  But, instead, I am content to reflect on the words of Solomon:

There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:

a time to be born and a time to die,

a time to plant and a time to uproot,

a time to kill and a time to heal,

a time to tear down and a time to build,

a time to weep and a time to laugh,

a time to mourn and a time to dance,

a time to scatter stones and a time to gather themm

a time to embrace and a time to refrain,

a time to search and a time to give up,

a time to keep and a time to throw away,

a time to tear and a time to mend,

a time to be silent and a time to speak,

a time to love and a time to hate,

a time for war and a time for peace.

~Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

This passage is often used when we are looking for reassurance in a single circumstance: why is there death, why is there pain, why is there sorrow.  We want to know that even the worst circumstances have a purpose.  For me, that is not the most significant or reassuring truth in this passage.  Instead of letting us know that there is room for even the painful things in the grand scheme of life, this passage lets us know that all things happen as part of a larger system that is always on-going.  There is always death, but there is also always life.  There is always pain, but there is also always hope.  There is always sorrow, but there is also always celebration.

For me, today has been the realization of that very truth.

The following is from John Donne’s Thoughts on Emergent Occasions.  The common phrases “for whom the bell tolls” and “no man is an island” come from this piece.  In its entirety  it is a refreshing read.  It is my hope it continues to aid in our discussion of human worth, human rights and the way we should view humanity.  Points of emphasis are mine.

XVII. MEDITATION
Now, this bell tolling softly for another, says to me: Thou must die.

Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that.

The church is Catholic, universal, so are all her actions; all that she does belongs to all.

When she baptizes a child, that action concerns me; for that child is thereby connected to that body which is my head too, and ingrafted into that body whereof I am a member.

And when she buries a man, that action concerns me: all mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated.

God employs several translators; some pieces are translated by age, some by sickness, some by war, some by justice; but God’s hand is in every translation, and his hand shall bind up all our scattered leaves again for that library where every book shall lie open to one another.

As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come, so this bell calls us all; but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness.

There was a contention as far as a suit (in which both piety and dignity, religion and estimation, were mingled), which of the religious orders should ring to prayers first in the morning; and it was determined, that they should ring first that rose earliest.

If we understand aright the dignity of this bell that tolls for our evening prayer, we would be glad to make it ours by rising early, in that application, that it might be ours as well as his, whose indeed it is.

The bell doth toll for him that thinks it doth; and though it intermit again, yet from that minute that that occasion wrought upon him, he is united to God.

Who casts not up his eye to the sun when it rises? but who takes off his eye from a comet when that breaks out?

Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? but who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world?

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were.

Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee.

Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours.

Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it.

No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by it, and made fit for God by that affliction.

If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current money, his treasure will not defray him as he travels.

Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it.

Another man may be sick too, and sick to death, and this affliction may lie in his bowels, as gold in a mine, and be of no use to him; but this bell, that tells me of his affliction, digs out and applies that gold to me: if by this consideration of another’s danger I take mine own into contemplation, and so secure myself, by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security.

I used to worry about what was true.  Now I spend more time trying to figure out what truth is.

At this stage of the game I find if I strongly disagree with someone, especially on theological matters, is often isn’t because we have come to different conclusions, but rather because we are asking different questions.

This tension has been made all the  more clear as I have wandered into the world of post-modern epistemology (if there is such a thing).  Many of my close friends fear that doing so has driven me to a place where any concept of truth is discarded; yet for me, I have made no judgments on truth itself, only on our own ability to comprehend truth.

So what does this have to do with type design?

Helvetica Documentary

The other day I watched a 1.5 hour documentary about the Helvetica typeface. Despite the seemingly mundane subject manner, the movie was quite interesting as it followed the rise of this Swiss font from the 1950’s to its ubiquitous status as the work horse of graphic design in the modernistic era.  You see Helvitca is an extremely “clean” font that supposedly could be used to convey pure meaning without getting in the way.  Rather than using hype and idealism, modernistic design (and the Helvetica font) could simply tell things as they were.

To put it visually, just look at these two coke ads:

1950s: Idealistic, life is beautiful. You drink Coke because it will make everything great.

1970: Direct, unassuming, to the point. You drink Coke because it is authentic.

For a while people soaked up this simple, direct style where everything had its place.  But eventually people began to realize that not everything in life fits into clear categories–in fact, life is hectic and chaotic and to ignore these aspects is not to be authentic.  This led to post-modernism where all the rules were thrown out and meaning was understood to be more in the experience than the text itself.   Unfortunately this way of thinking (and designing) eventually spiraled downward into a subjective mess of jumbled words and ideas.

Postmodern poster design with multiple fonts, jumbled information and chatoic layout. Credit: Dustin Parker

In this way modernism was a response to the idealism of the 1950’s and then postmodern design emerged in contrast to the orderliness of modernism.  While each stage developed as a way to be “more authentic” in the end, each failed because it refused to take in the whole picture.  Life is not perfect, life is not always orderly, but at the end of the day it is not complete chaos either.

I have found many approaches to Christianity mimic these stages of design.  Some people preach a Christianity where once you are “saved” all your problems go away.  This is just n0t true and breaks down under the smallest amount of scrutinizing.  Some people think that Christianity is very clear cut and if you study Scripture close enough, you will be able to categorize all things into right and wrong / black and white / in and out.  This too is niave as it fails to take into account the complexities of the world and the ambiguity of scripture.  Finally, some people approach Christianity in their own way and refuse to acknowledge the coherence and direction it does provide.  These people are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater leaving a religion stripped of its power and uniqueness.

In design, the best pieces are those that can open a window to a better world, clearly convey information and emotion, and at the end of the day, strike a personal chord that is rooted in authenticity.

Clean, powerful, authentic. See other great posters that combine these attributes here.

Our approach to Christianity needs to be similar.  We need to believe the faith we follow is moving us to a better place, yet acknowledge the pain and suffering of this current world.  In fact, the vision we have of the ways things can be is what should drive us to make it so.  When it comes to scripture and truth, we need to trust in the power of the narrative of scripture, yet also be willing to acknowledge its short comings and the holes in our own understanding of it.

I believe scripture does paint a clear picture of what it means to be the people of God and participate in the will of God.  At the same time, am not willing to assert simply believing in God will solve all the world’s ills, nor am I confident in saying we can distill pure truth from the Word of God.  Instead, I think Christianity is messy, yet follows a clear direction.  I don’t have all the specifics, but I feel I am wandering the right way.

I few weeks ago I wrote a post discussing health care as a right.  Since then I have had several good conversations with people from across the political spectrum on what constitutes a “human right” and what the implications are of such a delineation.  Last night I came across a 1996 article by Archbishop Desmond Tutu (a hero of mine) entitled Religious Human Rights and the Bible.  In just a few short pages he frames the question brilliantly by exploring how the Christian worldview calls us to understand the importance and dignity of each human being.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu

Tutu begins by acknowledging that religion (especially Christianity) has led to oppression and injustice.  Yet, he is quick to counter by pointing out the narrative of Scripture calls for a different view of things.  He bases his argument on the implications of the creation story where all humanity is uniquely created in the image of God.  He says:

The Bible claims for all human beings this exalted status that we are all, each one of us, created in the divine image, that it has nothing to do with this or that extraneous attribute which by the nature of the case, can be possessed by only some people… We must therefore have a deep reverence for the sanctity of human life… The life of every human person is inviolable a gift from God.

Being created in the image of God is not just about identity Tutu contends, it is also about calling and purpose.

The [Biblical Narrative] declares that the human being created in the image of God is meant to be God’s viceroy, God’s representative in having rule over the rest of creation on behalf of God.  To have dominion, not in an authoritarian and destructive manner, but to hold sway as God would hold sway–compassionately, gently, caringly, enabling each part of creation to come fully into its own and to realize its potential for the good of the whole, contributing to the harmony and unity which was God’s intention for the whole of creation.

When we understand ourselves and others in light of our connection with God, it requires a different response to questions about humanity and the rights of all persons.

[This understanding] imbues each one of us with profound dignity and worth… In the face of injustice and oppression it is to disobey God not to stand up in opposition to that injustice and that oppression  Any violation of the rights of God’s stand-in cries out to be condemned and to be redressed, and all people of good will must be engaged in upholding and persevering those rights as a religious duty.  Such a discussion as this one should therefore not be merely an academic exercise in the most pejorative sense.  It must be able to galvanize participants with a zeal to be active protectors of the rights of persons.

Even if we capture the depth and breadth of the implications of this understanding of God and his people, we are still faced with the fact that humanity was given the freedom to choose right or wrong, good or evil, obedience or rebellion.  We must not only understand who we are in light of our creator, we must also walk the delicate line of what it means to embody this reality.  Tutu explains:

We are created to exist in a delicate network of interdependence with fellow human beings and the rest of God’s creation.  All sorts of things go horribly wrong when we break this fundamental of our being.  Then we are no longer appalled as we should be that vast sums are spent on budgets of death and destruction, when a tiny fraction of those sums would ensure that God’s children everywhere would have a clean supply of water, adequate health care, proper housing and education, enough to eat and to war.

Tutu contends that it is only when we are willing to first understand ourselves and others in light of our relationship with God and our role as bearers-of-the-image-of-God, that we are truly able to to grasp the dignity, worth and inherent rights of all persons.  He concludes:

The biblical understanding of being human includes freedom from fear and insecurity, freedom from penury and want, freedom of association and movement, because we would live ideally in the kind of society that is characterized by these attributes.  It would be a caring and compassionate, a sharing and gentle society in which, like God, the strongest would be concerned about the welfare of the weakest, represented in ancient society by the widow, the alien, and the orphan.  It would be a society in which you reflected the holiness of God not by ritual purity and cultic correctness, but by the fact that when you gleaned your harvest, you left something behind for the poor, the unemployed, the marginalized ones–all a declaration of the unique worth of persons that does not hinge on their economic, social, or political status but simply on the fact that they are persons created in God’s image. That is what invests them with their preciousness and from this stems all kinds of rights.

Tutu’s analysis is poignant and thought provoking — especially for Christians.  It is not adequate to define human rights in terms of the constitution or any body of law.  Likewise, we cannot base our decisions on what is right on economic models or political ideologies.  Instead, we must ask a different sort of question. We must inquire as to how we can love and care for all people — all of whom are created in the image of God.

All marks of emphasis in quotations are mine. Religious Human Rights and the Bible was originally published in Volume 10 of the Emory International Law Review.  You can download the complete file here from The Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University.

Sonia Sotomayor

I am bit behind the news cycles with this post, but I did not want to miss the chance to comment on the role communities play in determining truth.

On August 6th, the US Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor as the 111th  Supreme Court Justice in the United States.  By all accounts her confirmation was relatively smooth sailing despite the partisan bickering found mostly on the fringes of the discussion.   With her 68-31 confirmation vote she became just the third woman and the first hispanic to sit on our nation’s highest court.  This selection process revealed a lot about our nation, but it also provided a lens through which we can view and understand the nature of “truth.”

While the confirmation hearings were generally calm, many lambasted her as being an “activist judge” and several organizations openly opposed her selection.  The most most notable was the NRA, who submitted an official letter calling her views on the 2nd amendment into question.

If you read the letter and followed the arguments against her, you will find the people who stood against her did so largely because the disagreed with the way she understood the law.  The reason they were so adamant in their opposition is because they realized at the end of the day, it does not matter what any individual thinks a law means, but rather, what the majority of the supreme court thinks it means.  The NRA and other conservative groups want like minded thinkers to be on the court because they realize the what the second amendment (and all laws) truly means is not static, but rather is interpreted.  Literally, the law means whatever the court says it means.  You can disagree, but you will be wrong.

It is interesting when you think about how the leanings of the courts affect this.  At certain times in our nation’s  history, the truth of the law was more conservative.  At other times, it was more liberal.  But what was constant is that legal truth was determined by the supreme court and the community of people who formed it.

Morality functions in the same way.  The only difference is the communities who determine it are much larger.  Think of misogynistic practices and slavery.  At one time these practices were considered acceptable and moral — but obviously this is not longer the case.  Did the morality of the acts change?  No.  Rather, the communities who determine morality changed (over time).

I have learned from many conversations that many people are not comfortable with this discussion — especially Christians who believe in the absolute truth of scripture.  The problem is that the meaning and “truth” of scripture have changed more often than our Constitution.  If you don’t believe me just read a survey of how various commentators have understood The Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke.

Truth is not individually relative.  That is to say, we all can’t go around making up what things mean.  But at the same time, it is dynamic.  Truth is determined by the communities who are willing to earnestly seek it.  It is my hope that each of us will take the question of truth seriously, just as we expect Sotomayor to seriously question what the truth of the law is in every case she is presented.

The following is a brief interview with an academic mentor of mine about the God of the Bible and the call for the church today.  Brueggemann says a few things that will be unsettling to some, but I think his points are thought provoking and important.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0hK3ZTVyc

Walter Brueggemann on the Bible

Here are some of the key quotes in the interview:

• I believe the God of the Bible is implicated in the inherent violence of the Bible.
• I believe the God of the Bible is a recovering agent of violence… it (violence) is always latently there.
• Violence is intrinsic to our inheritance… the question is whether or not we can resist this inheritance.
• The big revelatory moments are characteristically departures from what has been taken for granted.
• There is no final reading to the text — we are always going to be led somewhere else.

Without doubt most Christians are uncomfortable with calling God a recovering practitioner of violence, but without some serious theological gymnastics, it is hard to dispute — The God of the Old Testament used violence to bring about his will.  Let us not get caught up in this non-traditional description of God, but instead grasp the more important points Brueggemann is trying to make:

• The narrative of redemptive history is pointing us in the direction of love where violence is no more.
• Each generation is called to further the restoration of the world.
• We must often fight with the status quo in order to bring about a better world.
• While the next step is not always certain, the direction of the movement is.  We must move away from violence and oppression and towards a world where all things are set right.
• We must be open to God’s will in these matters and be bold in our willingness to act.

Earlier today I published a post about what the Bible says about tithing and how it is decidedly differant than our regular understandings.  It was supposed to be a quick post, but ended up covering quite a bit of ground.  Rather than launch into the implications of my findings in that post, I decided to break it off into a seperate discussion.

Here is the cliff notes version of the previous post:

• The only references to tithing in the New Testament either refer to Old Testament events, or are connected with religious leaders who miss the point.  Instead of tithing, a holistic understanding of giving is provided which emphasizes all things are God’s and are for God’s people.
• The Old Testament tithe consisted of things produced from the land and was given to the Levites, aliens, orphans and widows – the four groups of people most marginalized because they lack land.
• While some passages only mention that the tithe goes to the Levites, the more detailed passages say the tithe is to be taken to the temple (implied) and everyone is to consume it with their families in celebration.  There is even a provision that allows for people to sell their tithe and then use the money to buy whatever “party supplies” they wanted including wine and strong drink.  (See Deuteronomy 12:12-29 for all the details).

How does this jive with what we regularly practice regarding tithing or have been taught?  Here are some things we may need to rethink:

The Christian requirement for giving is 10%

This obviously doesn’t come from the New Testament, instead, it is a co-opting of an Old Testament idea.  BUT… if we are thorough in adopting the OT understanding of giving, we must also include the various offerings which accopany the tithe.  In the end, setting a 10% standard is more about convienance than biblical truth.  This is especially true if are neglecting to fully implement the concept as presented in the OT.

The tithe is to go to the church

This seems logical if we are trying to transition a concept centered around the temple into a world where the temple does not exist (and even if it did, would hold little significance for Christians).  If we understand that everything belongs to God, and we should give 10% of our assets (money) back to him, then it makes sense to give that to the church.  But, there are a couple breakdowns in that conclusion.

First, we must remember the tithe was not given to God (although a tithe of the tithe was — and that probably went to the priest), but rather it was given to the Levites  (at least according to Leviticus).  Since 50-75% of church budgets go to salaries that shouldn’t be a problem — except it is.  Even though Levites were the ministers of the day, it is not a clear correlation between them then and church staff members today.  You see, Levites were not given a salary, they were given food: grain and meat.  Furthermore, it was not wages they were being paid, but rather it was part of their blessing from God.  You see, when the promise land was divvied up, they did not get a share of their own, but were promised 10% of the yield of everyone else’s.  In essence, they were marginalized because they could not own land, but they were liberated because they lived on the gifts of others.  The tithe was how they survived day to day so they could minister, not how they earned a living so they could buy whatever they wanted.  In fact, the tithe was only given to the Levites as part of a larger celebration.  Whenever people had their yearly celebration of God’s blessing, they were to invite the Levites along and everyone would partake in the festivities together.  In other words, these servants received their share through an intimate connection with communal life.  The idea was not: “here is your share, go have your own fun.”  Instead it was: “we are celebrating together, come with us and have part of what God has blessed us with.”  This is not the salary structure we have in place at churches today.  We pay people to fulfill ministerial services for the church.

Even if we look at the more straightforward passages that only say 10% goes to the Levites without mention of a larger celebration, we find this model does not fit into modern church life.  Take Numbers 18 for instance.  It says the tithe goes to the Levites since they have no inheritance.  This idea is grounded in an understanding of God’s blessing that is linked to inheritance and land.  With the new covenant, the promise is no longer of land, but of adoption as God’s children.  The Levites got the tithe because the other tribes got the land.  But today, no one has the land.  We are no longer a geographically centered religious movement.  If we are going to compare our ministers to Levites, we must compare the parishioners to the other tribes who have been given a specific inheritance.  That analogy simply does not work.  In a post-resurrection church, each of us has the same promise.  One group does not need to give to another group because their spiritual promise is different.

Even if we get past salaries, thinking that our tithe goes to the church also neglects the image of communal sharing that is embedded in the scriptures.  Families did not give their tithes to central entity to throw a party, rather they came together to a place of communal significance and each family celebrated in their own way.  Their unity was through individual contribution, not through corporate design.

Finally, and most importantly, our current model of a tithe going directly to the church neglects the third year.  Remember of Deuteronomy 14:28-29, “At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns,  so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.”

Every three years the tithe is supposed to go to meet the needs of the marginalized in society.  Not only that, but the needs are to be met within the confines of the community.  I doubt many churches can claim that 33% of their income goes to meeting the physical needs of the those on the fringes of society.  Even then, when our tithe goes to the church, it often misses the key connection between individuals and the marginalized.  Each family is to play a role in meeting the physical needs of those in their community.

God will bless us if we tithe

First, let me say not everyone believes this, but I have heard it enough that it is impossible to ignore.  Second, it is not that I don’t think this is true, but at the same time I don’t think there is a causal relationship.  It is not an “if-then” situation.

This misunderstanding of the nature of tithing is rooted in a bad analysis of Malachi 3.  The prophet argues that Israel is stealing from God by withholding tithes and offerings.  After repremanding the nation, he says this in 3:10:

Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it.

Sure, the straightforward reading reveals that God promises to bless them if they bring their whole tithe.  However, it is the details that are most important.  The people are to bring FOOD to God’s house.  Why are they bringing food?  Based on the scripture we have examined, the only reason they would bring food as a tithe to a storehouse would be so it could be distributed to marginalize — to the Levites, aliens, orphans, and widows.  Also, the blessing promised revolves around there being so much food that there will not be a place to store it.  But, again the storing of food is intended for those on the outskirts of society.  So… God is not just promising people that if they give to the church, he will bless them.  Rather, God is saying that if the people of Israel are diligent in setting resources aside for those who need them, he will always ensure there is enough to give.


So what does it all mean?

Let me be clear.  I am not arguing that we should not give 10% of our money to the church.  Instead, I am saying we need to understand what scripture really says about the tithe and apply that to our giving.  Here is what I have concluded:

• The tithe is an Old Testament concept.  Instead of focusing on giving a part of our assets, we need to wrestle with understanding what it means that nothing truly belongs to us — it is all God’s and it is for all his people.
• There is nothing special about 10% and in all honesty, focusing on this number might do more harm that good.  When we put a percentage on what we give, it is easy to feel satisfied with our giving level.
• We should give so that some people can minister full time.  That being said, our giving should be designed so they can live and not in exchange for ministerial services.
• In both the Old Testament understanding of tithe and the New Testament witness to giving, there is a definite bent towards helping the marginalized.    Not only should we give so others can live, but we should do it not only corporately but individually as well.  This means we have the homeless over to our home for dinner and not just give money to a soup kitchen in the city.
• We are to celebrate the blessings of God communally and include others in the festivities.    We are not just talking about Sunday worship; we are talking about complete throw downs with unbelievable extravagance.  This is the place where rich and poor all eat the finest meals together because God has called them all to be fulfilled and to be his people.

All of this is tied to the promise bestowed on all of God’s people:  We are blessed so we can be a blessing to all.

Go to church, read your Bible, pray and tithe.  If you have these things down most people will consider you to be a pretty good Christian.  In fact, while mainstream Christians may disagree about other points of Christian orthopraxis (correct action / behavior) it seems these go without questioning.

That being said, the concept of tithing is not as clear cut as we may think.

First, the New Testament is virtually silent when it comes to tithing.  In Matthew 23 and Luke 11 Jesus critisizes the religious leaders for strictly obeying the tithe concerning spices, yet neglecting weightier issues.  Luke 16 also mentions it directly, but again, the person who brings up tithing is revealed to be insincere and misguided.  Beyond that, the only mention of tithing is in Hebrews 7 where it refers to an Old Testament example.

Instead of a tithe (litterally a tenth), the New Testament witness seems to point to a more holistic understanding of wealth: its all God’s and it is for everyone.  The epitomic example is surely Acts 2:

42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Now what about the Old Testament… surely the OT concept of tithing is universal and refers to giving money to God… right???

Well actually, the concept of tithing found in the Old Testament is a bit different than I think most would imagine.

The practice of giving a tithe is initially found in Genesis.  First, Abram gives a tenth of his property to the mysterious king/priest Melchizedek in chapter 14.  Then, in chapter 28, Jacob promises to give a tenth of his possessions to God.  Neither of these tithes are commanded, instead the action was initiated by the giver.

In Leviticus, we find the tithe is part of a much larger system of giving that includes offerings (just read the opening chapters to get a a gist of things). Chapter 27 of Leviticus describes the tithe formally.  It is to be 10% of everything from the land and it is to go to Levities (those who cared for the Tabernacle / temple and did not have a land inheritance).  Numbers 18 expands on this and says the Levities are to give 10% of what they receive “to the Lord.”  This probably means it goes to support the priests.

The Book of Deuteronomy provides a more complex (and I would argue less familiar) description of tithing.  Chapter 12 offers a brief description of tithing but it is chapter 14 that really expands on the concept:

22 Set apart a tithe of all the yield of your seed that is brought in yearly from the field.  23 In the presence of the LORD your God, in the place that he will choose as a dwelling for his name, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, as well as the firstlings of your herd and flock, so that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.  24 But if, when the LORD your God has blessed you, the distance is so great that you are unable to transport it, because the place where the LORD your God will choose to set his name is too far away from you,  25 then you may turn it into money. With the money secure in hand, go to the place that the LORD your God will choose;  26 spend the money for whatever you wish– oxen, sheep, wine, strong drink, or whatever you desire. And you shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your household rejoicing together.  27 As for the Levites resident in your towns, do not neglect them, because they have no allotment or inheritance with you.  28 Every third year you shall bring out the full tithe of your produce for that year, and store it within your towns;  29 the Levites, because they have no allotment or inheritance with you, as well as the resident aliens, the orphans, and the widows in your towns, may come and eat their fill so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work that you undertake.

What?!?! Let me make sure I get this straight.  We are to take our tithe, bring it to the temple (implied) and there we are to have feast with our family and friends! BUT… if we have a long way to travel, we can take our tithe, sell it, travel to the temple and then buy all the supplies we could ever want to throw a massive party…. AND…. we are encouraged to buy wine or strong drink.  Why is this not preached more often?!?!?

So we learn the primary purpose of the tithe is to celebrate with family, but what about the people it is to be shared with?  The Pentateuch says  each year we are to share the tithe with the Levities, and then, on the third year, rather than going to the temple, we are supposed to take our tithe and give it to Levities, the aliens, the orphans and the widows.

We need to be clear here.  Being a Levite does not just mean a person works in “God’s house” and ministers to people.  It also means this person has no inheritance of their own.  When it came to divvying up the promised land, this group got left out.  They have no land and no potential to raise their own crops or animals.  Their material blessing must come through the generosity of Israel.  This firmly places them among the marginalized of society.  This understanding is strengthened when they are listed about the trirfecta of societal fringe groups: the aliens, orphans and widows.  In ancient Israel, these 4 groups represented those in most need because they could not have land of their own.

When we take the time to explore it deeper, we find the Biblical tithe was designed to provide a celebration of God’s blessing with special attention to bringing the marginalized into this celebration.  This seems much different than the understanding that is usually taught (or implied)

Beyond the Pentateuch, mentions of tithing is sparse.  It is most often found when a group is being called back to obedience.  (i.e. During the Hezekian reform in 2 Chr 31 and in Nehemiah and Malachi during the post-exilic period.)  The only other occurrence “tithe” is a brief mention in Amos 4.

Once we realize what scripture actually teaches about tithing, perhaps we can honestly explore some of the larger implications.

First… an apology to all my readers (all 8 of you… 6 if you don’t count Beth and my mom).   On July 14th Beth and I started a series of ten top 10 lists.  We tried to post daily, but unfortunately I have gotten a bit behind.  That has partly been because of craziness in life, but also because I have been a lot of thought in this final list.  So far we have explored the things that we enjoy, the things we want to do, and a few things about us.  If you have followed along closely, you might have learned a bit about what type of person I am.  I believe that underneath these lists are core ideas that define me as a person.

In reflecting on life these last two weeks, I have examined the concepts that drive me as a person.  In my mind, they all are synergistic and guide my day-to-day living as well as the larger direction of my life.  Here are the 10 ideas that define me as person.

1. Trajectory of Redemptive History – I first picked up this phrase in Dr. Sandy Richter’s Intro to Old Testament my first semester at Asbury Seminary.  Since then, it has been the primary way that I understand the work of God, God’s people, and the narrative of scripture.  The idea is simple: Since the beginning of history, God has been working in and through his people to bring all of creation to redemption and restoration.  I do not believe the world is constantly descending into more and more evil and pain, but rather, it is consistently moving to place where all wrongs are set right and life is as it should be.  Martin Luther King Jr. expressed this concept when he said, ” The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”  In regards to this central idea to my life, I must highly recommend Dr. Richter’s book The Epic of Eden.
2. Kingdom of God – During the summer of 2006 Beth and I hosted a Bible Study for college students in our home.  We looked through book of Matthew at all of Jesus’ references to the Kingdom of Heaven (Kingdom of God in other gospels).  Simply put, it completely changed the way I viewed the message of Jesus.  In the 6 months that followed, my entire approach to Christianity began to morph.  This was one of the most formative and painful times in my life.  The concept of the KofG is complex and simple at the same time.  It is in essence the world where God gets his way — it is a world redeemed and restored.  I am convinced Christians are a part of the KofG and called to bring it about.  There is a constant tension between the “already” and the “not yet” of this idea.  A good intro to this concept is N.T. Wright’s The Challenge of Jesus.
3. Nature of Truth – During my time of theological and philosophical transition (which, while coinciding with my entry into Seminary, was probably more of a push back to what I was learning than the result of it) one of the primary things I gave thought to was the nature of truth and how we know what we know.  I have written an extensive piece on my conclusions (this blog is actually titled after this paper).  To summarize, I believe there is truth, but it can only be understood through our flawed human existence.  Our worldview will always skew our perception.  This has led me to be more humble in how I understand knowledge and open to others conclusions.
4. Interpretive Communities – If truth is dynamic (or at least flexible in our understanding of it) how do we reach conclusions on what is?  Stanley Fish has given me the framework for answering this question.  Truth is shaped by the communities we are a part of.  I have discussed the practicalities of this in this post.
5. You must be the change you wish to see in the world – This quote is from Ghandi and is pretty self explanatory.  I tend to be fairly cerebral and will process thoughts on societal change in my mind quite frequently.  I constantly ask ‘What does it look like to have the Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.”  Sometimes I think I have the answer, other times I am overwhelmed.  But consistently, I must be reminded that knowing change is needed is useless if nothing is being done to bring it about.  I have spent way too much time trying to convince others to change, when in reality, I must first embody the change I wish to see.
6. Pacifism – I have increasingly found as I explore the implications of Kingdom theology that if I want to truely follow Jesus, it requires radical pacifism.  This is one area where I feel my Mennonite brothers and sisters have a lot to teach mainstream evangelicals.  This is a topic I wish to explore further in the coming weeks.  Look for a full length post (or 3), but until then, I urge you to ponder the implications of this quote from MLK:
   
   Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.
   
   
7. Knowledge is power – This sounds odd to me when I list it out, but the essence of this idea play out regularly in my life.  This does not mean the more degrees you get the more influence you have, or that the most powerful people are the most learned.  Instead, it refers to ability.  If I have knowledge of how to fix a lawn mower, I can help my neighbor out in a pinch.  If I can speak another language, I can learn more about a person and their situation.  If I understand a person’s situation, I can empathize and appreciate them more.  Unfortunately, the withholding of knowledge can be used to oppress and subjugate.  That is why I find great power in open and non traditional learning.
8. Stewardship of Creation – Because of the way I view the world and the Kingdom of God, I hold firm to the belief that all people are called to participate in the protection and redemption of the world.  While this included environmental responsibility, it also points to the belief that all people are part of a larger world and the needs of all must be considered.
9. Umbuntu – This is an African concept that can loosely be translated “I am because we are.”  It focuses on the interconnectedness of all people and the need for mutual respect.  It also captures the way community identity shapes personal identity.  It is the antithesis of individualism.  In the past few decades, many of the leaders I most respect have used this idea to being about peaceful reconcilliation.  Here is a clip of Desmond Tutu discussing the concept of Ubuntu:
   httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftjdDOfTzbk
10. Prophetic Imagination – In his book The Prophetic Imagination, Walter Brueggemann discusses the role of the prophet in brining about a better world.  He claims a prophet must be able to project a world as is it can be so we can see past the world as it is.  In doing this, he identifies two modes: criticizing and energizing.  Basically he says at times a prophet must speak out against injustices, and at other times a prophet must speak about things that can happen.  However, at the end of the day, the prophet must embody this alternate reality.  This tension between criticizing and energizing is put plainly by Ben Harper when he asks, “what good is a critic with no better plan.”  In fact, his whole song “Better Way” exemplifies this concept.
    httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TILzJ-_4urk

Closing note:

As I upload this final post in the my series of ten Top 10 lists, I just wanted to say how much I have enjoyed writing them and have been encouraged by the response I have received.  I am very thankful Beth decided to join me in writing out her lists.  It was a great experiance to work through this process of self-reflection together.  If you have not read her posts and are interested in them, you can view them here on her blog: A Sugar-Mamma’s Thoughts

Beth and I have taken a short break from our 10 top 10 lists in order to spend some time with family.  Today we are on list #6, which looks at the most influential books for us.  Many of the concepts raised in these books will be revisited with our final blog post, which will examine the 10 ideas that define us as people.  I have listed them in a way that illustrates how each builds on the others.

1. Is there a text in this class?, Stanley Fish – This book examines the nature of truth as it relates to the authority of texts.  As you will see, many of the books that follow rely on an interpretation of scripture to direct a community to action.  Fish provides a framework for understanding how interpretive communities shape truth.
   
2. Nature of Doctrine, George Lindbeck – Whereas Fish looks as the authority of texts, Lindbeck looks at the nature of religion to determine how they practically function.  It is his conclusion that religion is like language and culture in that it explains the world around us, but it also helps us experience it.
   
3. Life in Biblical Israel, Philip King and Lawrence Stager – Once we have discussed the role of community, religions and texts, it is essentially we understand the communities of Scripture if we are going to allow it to shape our lives.  This book is approachable and practical as it outlines the world from which the Old Testament was born.  Concepts such as kinsman redeemer and house of the father unlock amazing depth in the Hebrew Scriptures.
   
4. New Testament and the People of God, N.T. Wright – No other theologian / historian has shaped my understanding of Scripture more than N.T. Wright.  He does an excellent job of allowing the historical setting to inform a reader’s understanding of Scripture.  He is a prolific writer, but this book in particular has been instrumental in shaping my understanding of the world of the New Testament.
   
   
5. Prophetic Imagination, Walter Brueggemann – Once the world of scripture is established, we must understand how that affects the modern people of God.  Brueggemann (my favorite OT scholar) outlines the role of the prophet in projecting a world in line with God’s will.  Sometimes it requires critisizing an existing establishment, and at other times it requires energizing a new possibility.  I always try to keep both of these sides in tension in my own life.
   
6. Challenge of Jesus, N.T. Wright – Whereas Brueggemann outlines the implications of the OT prophet, in this book Wright outlines the implications of the person of Jesus.  By showing Jesus in his historical context he allows the reader to grasp the importance of the Messiah beyond simply “personal salvation.”
   
   
7. Resident Aliens, Stanley Hauerwas – After understanding the role community plays in shaping an understanding of truth, and then exploring the implications of the communities of scripture, Hauerwas explores what it means for Christians today to live as a community wherein we are in the world but not a part of it — living in a colony of hope.
   
   
8. The Politics of Jesus, John Howard Yoder – I have already confessed that deep down I am a Mennonite.  I have the utmost respect for people who are consistent in their views of the world, and practical in their faith.  This book captures Yoder’s approach to understanding Christianity by outlining a way of life that the modern people of God can follow that is consistent with the person of Jesus.
   
   
9. Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis – Moving away abstract and into the practical aspect of being a Christian, I most often turn to the tested words of Thomas à Kempis.  This is one of the most read texts of all time.  Since we are talking about books today, I will include this quote from him: “At the Day of Judgment, we shall not be asked what we have read, but what we have done.”
   
   
10. Walden, Henry David Thoreau – I end with the timeless work of Henry David Thoreau.  While his existentialist thought may seem out of line in light of the previous 9 pieces, for me it is the culmination of the list because in the pages of this book I have always found the honesty and connectedness to the world that is necessary to live daily.  It was Thoreau who said “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation,” and it is he who provides the most poignant commentary on my life as I flip through the pages of his works.