Matthew 18 - Looking out for the little ones (vv. 15-20)

Matthew 18:15-20 begins,

“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault when the two of you are alone. If he listens to you, you have regained your brother.” (NET)

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.” (ESV, italics mine)

A quick survey of some of the most popular English translations show that the latter form is slightly more common. However, margin notes and commentaries reveal that the former (without the “against you”) is probably the original reading. I think that this better fits the overall context. When “against you” is included, the text suddenly introduces a thematic dichotomy: whereas the context thus far has been about community relationships as a whole in the kingdom of heaven, this addition marks an awkward and strange shift toward an individual grievance toward another individual – it would mark a drastic shift from concern about how others are treated, especially the “little ones,” to concern about how I’m treated. I think that the omission of the gloss keeps the context of these texts consistent with the thematic whole of the chapter.

The addition of εἰς σέ, “against you,” at this point in the majority of MSS and versions changes an altruistic concern about a brother’s spiritual danger into a personal grievance. That personal concern will be appropriate, and is made explicit, in Peter’s question in v. 21 (εἰς ἐμέ), which leads into the discussion of forgiveness for personal wrongs, but to introduce it here, where it is the brother’s welfare, not “your” interest, which is in focus, is premature; it is probably due to a mechanical reading back of the phrase from v. 21. The shorter reading of א and B (in agreement with the parallel in Luke 17:3, where there is less support for an added εἰς σέ) is thus to be preferred… (New International Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew, verse footnote)

Verses 15-17 have also traditionally been used as instructions for church discipline; i.e., if a church member is observed to be, or have been, committing a sin then these verses describe the procedure for confronting the offending member, up to and including a full church censure with a possible final result of excommunication (or disfellowshipping, depending on denominational tradition). While this may be a possible application, it is not the primary intent, once again returning to the observation that no “church hierarchy” or “church authority” has been invoked in the chapter thus far. Moreover we have already seen that such hierarchy or authority is discouraged and even denounced in earlier verses.

The singular pronouns of this paragraph make it very unlikely, however, that these verses should be understood as guidance specifically for church leaders… Commentators who use the formal language of ecclesiastical discipline or even “excommunication” in connection with v. 17 seem regularly to fail to notice the singular “you.” The person at risk is described as “your brother or sister” (adelphos, see 689, n.). This family language imports a note of personal care rather than objective censure… In view of such language we should be cautious about speaking in this context of “discipline,” if that term is understood to connote one person exercising authority over another… In view of such language we should be cautious about speaking in this context of “discipline,” if that term is understood to connote one person exercising authority over another. (NICNT: Matthew)

These texts might also be seen to speak to the sheep that is going astray in the immediately preceding verses. In other words, when a believer sees another member of the family going astray, these current verses are instructions on how to make the one going astray aware of their sin and to bring them back. And I think that is a more appropriate application than as the previously discussed “manual for church discipline.” But is this the only or the best way of reading this text?

Given the above, what then shall we make of this text?

The theme and context in the line of argument of this chapter is how some in the kingdom of heaven think they are greater than others, having more power, privilege, and authority, and in particular over the “little ones.” This very attitude and the actions based on them are “stumbling blocks” that have caused some of these “little ones” to go astray. Who is at greater fault here? Who has committed the greater sin? The warning given was that these would be better to cut off offending parts of themselves than to end up destroyed, and what they deserve is a millstone to be hung about them and they drowned than for them to destroy relationships in God’s kingdom.

I believe that the primary application for verses 15-20 is on those who are destroying others within the kingdom through their pursuit of “personal greatness.” These very same frequently intimidate those around them into saying and doing nothing about such sins. I think these verses are speaking to those who observe relationship destroying attitudes and actions happening, but are afraid to do anything about it. I think these verses are giving us permission, command, and authority to confront those who are power-seeking and abusive. These verses remind us that Christ himself will accompany those (c.f., vv. 19, 20) who actively look out for the welfare of the “little ones” to make sure they are not led or driven astray.

Yet in confronting those with self-aggrandizing and power-seeking attitudes, the goal is not to drive them away either. The ultimate goal is for all to be reconciled with one another. But we can’t make reconciliation happen if the offending party isn’t willing. In that case it is better for the parties to separate. Depending on the nature of the offense, further interaction may not be possible or desirable. Ultimate judgment is left to God.

Book Review–First Bite: How We Learn to Eat

First Bite: How We Learn to Eat by Bee Wilson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A fascinating and detailed discussion about how humans learn (or as the case may be, fail to learn) to eat. Bee Wilson uses research from medicine, psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, economics, and sociology to explain how we learn to eat what we do, from prior to birth all the way to the twilight years.

Wilson's focus is primarily on the years of infancy through childhood, as good eating and dietary habits formed during these years can last a lifetime. But she describes how poor and harmful habits can be corrected later in life, to improve both health and enjoyment of life.

What is found inside this book may be of great value to parents. What is provided here is research-based information (Wilson doesn't call it 'advice') that can help parents place their children (and themselves) on a good trajectory of life, as far as eating and food go. Quite a few of the ideas presented go against traditional advice, but are supported by recent research.

The book may also be of value to those in medical and dietary fields. It provides a good overview of the current state of research findings.

View all my reviews

Book Review - Reading Genesis: Beginnings

Reading Genesis: Beginnings by Beth Kissileff
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is a collection of essays from a Jewish perspective about how the text of Genesis speaks to a 21st century audience. Within this focus, the disciplines are varied - religion, history, law, science, cooking, poetry, and more.

Many of the reading and interpretations offered are novel and unique. They engage tradition, but seek to go beyond it, to see how perspectives from non-traditional disciplines might shed different light onto the ancient text and its meanings.

I found all of the essays interesting to read. Some connected with me more than others. Some were more thought-provoking than others. For me, coming from a Christian background, reading this collection was quite eye-opening. A Christian reading of the Bible is usually with the understanding that there is a "right interpretation" to be found, but in this Jewish collection the emphasis is on variety and possibilities of meaning. I think there is a great deal of value in discovering new ways of reading and seeing familiar texts, and can open eyes to the value of interfaith and interdisciplinary conversations in engaging the sacred.

(This review is based on ARC of the book supplied by the publisher through NetGalley.)

View all my reviews

Matthew 18—Sheep Going Astray (vv. 10-14)

The next four verses (yes four – verse 11 is absent in most translations) is framed by an inclusio about “little ones” and contains two verses frequently referred to as The Parable of the Lost Sheep. However, this heading or title is more appropriately applied to a similar parable found in Luke 15:1-7. In the Matthean account, the sheep is not said to be “lost” but to have “gone astray.” In the Lucan account, the rejoicing is over the sheep that is found, represeing a sinner that repents, whereas in Matthew there is no mention of repentance on the part of the sheep. The context of the Lucan account is “sinners” who are being welcomed by Jesus, whereas in Mathew the context is about those who already are part of God’s kingdom but where some “little ones” are being “disdained” or “despised.”

But among the various differences in wording there is one which may be significant: in Luke the sheep is already “lost,” whereas here it is “wandering away” (the word is repeated three times). This may be no more than an idiomatic variation, but the contexts in which the two parables are set, and the audiences to which they are addressed, suggest that it may indicate a different focus… To oversimplify the difference, Luke’s parable is evangelistic, and Matthew’s pastoral. (New International Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew)

I think that what sometimes (and perhaps frequently) happens in interpreting this parable is that it (the Matthean account) gets combined with the Lucan account and is read through John’s Good Shepherd passages (John 10:1-18) leading to a confused amalgamation that does disservice to all three and mises the intent of each one.

In this series so far, I’ve discussed the pursuit of power and status as antithetical to the kingdom of heaven. This frames the entire discussion of Matthew 18. In the next set of verses the issue of believers placing “stumbling blocks” in the path of “little ones” was discussed. Since the “little ones” remains the subject of our present text, we would do well to continue the line of argumentation that is being put forth by the author. We should not isolate the parable of the sheep from what comes before and after.

For me, the key question to understanding these four verses is

“Why does the sheep go astray?”

Is it because the sheep sinned in some way that caused them to not want to stay with the shepherd? Or did they become distracted by “the world” so that they wandered off? These are common interpretations and I don’t necessairly think they are wrong, but perhaps they are better off being assigned to the Lucan or Johannine accounts.

I think the key to the answer is found in verse 10 which is the reason for the parable. The opening sentence states, “See that you do not disdain one of these little ones.” [NET]. The whole line of argument so far in Matthew 18 is how some in the kingdom (the church) in their pursuit of and/or holding to power and status (vv. 1-5) are placing stumbling blocks in the path of other believers (vv. 6-7). Drastic measures must be taken to “cut off” such evils found among those who claim to be in the kingdom of heaven (vv. 8-9). The reason for this is found in our present text, verses 10-14: The “little ones” are infinitely esteemed by God.

The sheep go astray because those who ought to be looking out for them have failed.

They have failed through neglect and by their own power-seeking; they have “despised” the “little ones,” the ones that God has particular concern for.

To “despise” is the opposite of the “welcome” in v. 5. It is the natural way of the world to “despise little ones,” in the sense of not taking them seriously or giving their interests priority. Here, as so often, Jesus attacks the values of the rat-race. (NICNT: Matthew)

It is critical to note that no fault is ascribed to the sheep for going astray, and unlike in Luke nothing is the Matthean version of the parable indicates repentance on the part of the sheep. “But,” some might object, “don’t the next verses speak of restoration of a fellow believer that has sinned?” Yes they do, and I understand how these verses have been traditionally applied. But could there be a different way of reading and interpreting it that continues what I believe to be more consistent with the line of argument that is being developed in this chapter? I think there is, and that will be the subject of the next post.

Matthew 18—On Stumbling Blocks (vv. 6-9)

This post looks into Matthew 18:6-9. I use the NRSV version this time because its translators consistently translated the key word that ties together these verses. The word? Skandalizo (Gk. σκανδαλίζω and variants) found in each of these verses. The NRSV translates the various words as “stumbling block” and “stumble.” (The NASB and NIV are also consistent.)

Unfortunately many translations use and mix multiple English phrases so that the unifying thread is often lost. These other translations include –

• “trip and fall”
• “fall into sin”
• “to sin”
• “causes you to sin”

Is it such a big deal to remain consistent and so favor “stumble” (the more literal translation) vs. “to sin”? I believe it is. In the modern English context, the phrase “to sin” brings to mind much more of a immoral and evil behavior and action – it connotes concreteness and offense to a legal code. Causing another “to sin” (v. 6) connotes a deliberate evil and malicious intent by one leading their victim toward committing a crime or immoral action. When verses 8 and 9 speak of things in one’s life “causes you to sin,” that too connotes violations of legal codes and moral order. As a whole, when “sin” is the translation of skandalizo the focus seems to turn to an external code and norm that is violated.

But if we take the entirety of Matthew 18 to be about how to live together as a family with God as its head, the translation “stumbling block” and “to stumble” seem better ones. These give me far broader sense than breaking hard-coded laws or performing immoral actions. The terms are also more difficult to define and pin down as to exactly what they might mean, and I think that is precisely the point: what is a stumbling block might be quite different from one person to another, from one context to another. What causes a person to stumble may change from one time to another.

I think it is important to retain the more amorphouse “stumble” and to keep it consistently throughout these verses because what Jesus is speaking about here is far more than “doing bad things.” It is about anything and everything that might cause a person to leave God’s family. These certainly include actions, but I believe far more crucial are things like attitude and value priorities that are experienced within a community of believers.

… The “stumbling” envisaged is much more drastic than simply “being offended” or even “scandalized.” It appears to envisage fatal damage to the disciple’s relationship with God. They are caused to “trip” so as to be in danger of falling out of the race altogether. (New International Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew)

Perhaps most important is how a Christian community (as smaller and larger units) look upon those who are powerless, weak, and despised.

The “despising” of the little ones in v. 10 is the attitude which promotes such damaging behavior toward them. (NICNT: Matthew)

How are you and I, our local church community, our denominations, and the Christian world at-large addressing racial, gender, economic, and social inequalities, especially within their midst? Vv. 1-5 already revealed that hierarchy, and authority and power inequities have no place in the kingdom of heaven, aka God’s family. By maintaining them, through appeal to tradition or even because an interpretation that supports it seems to “be biblical,” those that do are placing stumbling blocks in God’s family. And those who do have much to answer for. We would be better to cut off our hands, feet, and gouge out our eyes – perhaps one metaphorical application for this “hard saying” is for removing even those very things that might be seen as “bliblical” but violates the law of love and equality – than to be complicit in the loss of “a little one” from God’s family.

---

(Made a few minor edits to the last paragraph since initial publish. Changing “their” to “our” because we are all blind in one way or another.)

Matthew 18—Power and status (vv. 1-5)

Matthew 18:1-5 begins with a phrase translated as “At that time…” and continues “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” A footnote on this verse in the New International Commentary New Testament: Matthew suggests that this question implies “So who is the greatest…?”

The particle ἄρα normally indicates some inference from a previous statement (as in 17:26, “Well then;” cf. 7:20; 12:28; 19:25, 27).

Taken together this unit is connected to the question of paying temple tax immediately preceding in 17:24-27. Jesus has just expalined to his disciples that even though they were not recognized as such by the priesty and religious establishment, they are familial members of God’s royal household and not required to pay the temple tax. Jesus’ reasoning on this was based on the the familiar privilege extended to earthly royalty and their families.

It is in this context of family that the disciples ask Jesus about hierarchy, status, and power within the family. After all, in earthly royal families the king or emperor stood at the head, his eldest son typically held the next position of power, others sons with increasingly diminishing status, daughters with even less, and so on down the line. But as a family they held power and privilege over all who weren’t family. The disciples assumed the same kind of arrangement in God’s family and kingdom. (Note also that within this context, God’s kingdom is not a location or reward, but a set of relationships in the present.)

Usage so far in this gospel indicates that “the kingdom of heaven” here refers to the new values which Jesus is inculcating, and the communal life of those who embrace them, so that in effect the question means “Who is the top disciple?” (NICNT: Matthew)

Jesus’ response to this question and with everything else that follows in chapter 18 is that in God’s family, God is head but beyond that there is no hierarchy and no power or status differentials. No member of God’s family has the benefit of more privilege or power over another member.

As an illustration and parable, Jesus calls a child (an actual child) to him. He tells his disciples that they must “turn around and become” like this child, and is quite emphatic that if they do not, they “will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

The phrase “turn around” (Gk. στρέφω) is sometimes translated “converted” (e.g., KJV). I think “turn around” better captures the intent: the disciples are to figuratively and literally “turn around” their hierarchical assumptions! The harmony of relationships in the kingdom of heaven depends on this. And I think that it can be extended to say that without this harmony, there can be no kingdom of heaven, and what I hear Jesus saying when he says “will never enter the kingdom of heaven” is that heaven can’t exist if there is ongoing strife and contending for power.

To abandon human thoughts of personal status and to accept or even seek a place at the bottom of the pecking order implies as radical a change of orientation as our term “conversion” involves. (NICNT: Matthew)

Sometimes verse 3 has been taken sort of by itself and its admonition “become like little children” has been taken (out of context) to mean that Christians should strive toward childlike innocece, dependence, etc – about adopting and growing childlike qualities and attributes. That is not what Jesus meant when we understand that the context is about power and status.

Jesus goes on to say that his disciples must “humble [themselves] like this child” and if they do so, they will be “the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” We begin to see what Jesus wants to communicate about status-seeking: that there is no place for it in God’s family.

The instruction to “become like children” is thus not about adopting some supposed ethical characteristic of children in general (innocence, humility, receptiveness, trustfulness or the like) but about accepting for oneself a position in the social scale which is like that of children, that is as the lowest in the hierarchy of authority and decision-making, those subject to and dependent on adults…

Its meaning [“humble themselves”] is thus closer to “humiliate”, so that to “make oneself tapeinos like this child” (the literal translation of the expression here) does not mean to attempt to gain the mental virtue of humility which is supposed (by whom?—not by most parents or teachers!) to be characteristic of children, but rather to accept the low social status which is symbolized by the child, who in an adult world has no self-determination and must submit to the will of adults who “know best.” (NICNT: Matthew)

The irony and paradox presented is that those who make themselves lowest and most dependent, are in fact, the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. What does it really mean then, to be “the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”?

Verse 5 begins a transition in the discussion. The discussion remains on status and power, but moves from what we should seek for ourselves to how we view those who have no apparent status or power; those who are marginalized and powerless according to earthly, human standards. This gets to the heart of the remainder of Matthew 18: power, status, and relationships within God’s family, aka Church.

Perhaps the most important point to note in verse 5 is that Jesus identifies himself with the child. To welcome (not just tolerate, but to fully accept and include) those that the world casts out, that tradition and culture (both secular and religious) considers “outside”, is to welcome Jesus himself.

Book Review - The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible

The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible by Scot McKnight
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

How each of us chooses (consciously or not, but we all do choose) to read the Bible has a direct impact on how we end up applying its text.

One of the first things Dr. Scot McKnight brings up is that "we all pick and choose" when it comes to the Bible and its application to our lives. The important thing is to become aware of it and learn how we pick and choose. By becoming cognizant of our way of reading and our biases, we can become better interpreters of the text and have a rationale for why we interpret the way we do.

Dr. McKnight details how he believes the Bible ought to be read. His is a balance between all-tradition and all-individualism. Each person needs to read the Bible and think through applications as individuals, but it must be done as part of both historical and contemporary communities of faith. He describes this as "reading with tradition" as opposed to "reading through tradition". The difference is that with tradition values what tradition brings, but leaves open the room to question it and revise it, if necessary. Reading through tradition places it on a pedestal; it is a fixed norm that cannot be changed. While Protestants, and particularly Evangelicals, might protest that they don't put tradition on a pedestal, Dr. McKnight argues that is in fact what has happened in many churches.

He suggests that we would do ourselves great service to learn to read the Bible as a Story, where there was the original intent for humankind, how things went wrong, God's efforts to bring restoration that culminates in Jesus, and ends with a final restoration of all things. This is in contrast to the many ways of contemporary Bible reading that looks to the Bible for isolated principles, maxims, promises, and applications. Dr. McKnight writes that contemporary Christians have often turned the Bible itself into an object of worship (idolatry) by conferring upon it authority and infallibility that belongs only to God himself.

The final section of the book is a case study of what Dr. McKnight discusses in the first two sections. The case study is on the role of women in ministry. He looks at the Old and New Testaments to see What Did Women Do? as found in the biblical text. He places this inside of the greater Story framework of the Bible and God's redemptive plan. He uses this as the framework to interpret some of the "hammer" passages that are frequently cited by traditionalists to bar women from full inclusion in ministry. It is not a full and exhaustive discussion of women in ministry, but provides key points and highlights.

He writes the following, which I see as summarizing his position:

Now for the troubling irony: seeking to control or limit the applicability of the WDWD passages by appealing to the silencing passages illustrates the fall, not the new creation. When men seek to control women by silencing them permanently in the church, we stand face-to-face with a contradiction of the very thing the new creation is designed to accomplish: to undo the fall. What we see in this desire to silence women is the desire to rule over women, a desire that pertains to the fall, not to the new creation. What the Spirit does when the Spirit is present is to release and liberate humans from their fallen condition so that God’s will can be completely done. The Spirit creates mutuality. Always.

I see Dr. McKnight as a progressive conservative: he is progressive in his approach to interpreting the Bible, but he is very much conservative in accepting Bible as inspired by God and is critical in apprehending God's revelation to humankind.

While not all may accept Dr. McKnight's position on women in ministry, he cannot be accused of not having a sound rationale for it. And it would do well for all who claim that the Bible has some degree of authority over them, to read this book and have a clearer idea of how they have chosen to read and interpret the Bible. To that effect there are a couple of quizzes found in the Appendices to help guide the reader.

View all my reviews

Matthew 18–Seen as a complete unit

I once again came across Matthew chapter 18. This chapter is noteworthy, famous, and well-used. It is subdivided into smaller units that are frequently the basis for sermons, essays, books, and standalone doctrinal points:

• You must become humble as children (vv.1-5)
• If any part of you causes you to sin, cut it off (vv.6-9)
• Parable of the Lost Sheep (vv.10-14)
• Instructions for church discipline (vv. 15-17)
• Efficacy of prayer (vv. 18-20)
• How many times must I forgive? (vv. 21-22)
• Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (vv. 23-35)

This time though, I noticed a few key words and themes that made me think that this entire chapter really is a single unit and we’ve done much disservice to it by taking smaller units out of it and using them in standalone ways. What words and themes did I see?

• “Kingdom of heaven” – vv. 1-4, and again in v. 23. My thought: the concluding parable might have something to do with the initial question of the disciples and Jesus’ immediate response.
• “Children” and “little ones” – vv.1-14. My thought: the intial question and Jesus’ answer extends all the way through verse 14.
• The theme of going astray tied to a fellow Christian sinning and going astray – vv. 10-20. My thought: the theme of “little ones” earlier overlaps and morphs into the entirety of Christian community and individual responsibility to one another.
• The theme of forgiveness – vv. 21-35. My thought: This theme follows directly from what to do when a Christian who has gone astray returns, when a sheep returns to the fold, when someone who has caused a “little one” to stumble repents.

As can be seen, to take any smaller section of this chapter and apply it directly to a church context brings danger of anachronism and misuse. The entirety of the chapter appears to be providing Matthew’s perspective on how members of the kingdom of heaven are to behave toward one another, particularly when tensions, frictions, and offenses arise.

While it is convenient to divide the text into sections for the purpose of commentary, apart from the second question which divides the discourse at v. 21 all other such breaks are relatively arbitrary (see especially comment on v. 6) and should not be allowed to obscure the connected flow of the discourse as a whole… To take this corporate focus of vv. 17–20 as the leitmotif of the whole discourse, thus constituting it a manual for church leaders, is to get it out of proportion. The “community” aspect of the discourse consists not primarily in that it prescribes corporate action, but that it guides the individual disciple on how to live in relation to other members of the community to which he or she is assumed to belong. (New International Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew; C. Living Together as Disciples: The Discourse on Relationships, 18:1-19:2)

Jesus' concern for the feelings and needs of others lays the groundwork for the discourse that follows on how the church is to live together as a family. (Reading Matthew, 17:24-18:35)

I plan to take a closer look at each of the sections and see what they say in relation to the whole.

Thoughts on Pianos

Copyright : Teerawut Masawat

During this holiday season I had the chance to play six different pianos. These ranged from a small upright (console) to a professional (about 6’) grand piano. Included also is my own personal digital stage piano, the Kawai MP7.

Of the five acoustics, one console had a very nice exterior but I experienced stuck and slow keys in addition to not being in tune. Another console is quite aged and has various minor issues with mechanics and sound. There is an old mini-grand which has some tuning and maintenance issues. There is a studio upright which has been well maintained and has decent sound. And the professional grand which surprisingly I found a couple of keys that didn’t respond as well as they should have. Of these five, the last two are the ones I am most pleased playing, with both mechanics and audio.

I found that the Kawai MP7 is at least the equal of the professional grand piano, in terms of keyboard touch, feel, action, and sound.

This season I took my digital setup to two venues: one that didn’t have a piano at all, and one that has a piano but is one of the ones I don’t like. I found I could tear down the setup and load it up in my van in about fifteen minutes, and about the same amount of time to load-in and set up at the venue.

The good things about hauling my own setup is that the instrument is always in tune across the entire range, feel and action are consistent on every key, I know what it sounds like, and because it’s what I practice on, I know how it will respond. When it comes to pianos already at the venues, even on ones that I’ve played before, unless I am using it regularly the response and sound take some time to get used to, and there is always the possibility of finding a mechanical or tuning issue.

The negative aspects include the set up and tear down time and effort that has to be figured in, the wobble during playing (though it really doesn’t affect my playing now that I’ve gotten accustomed to it) due to the “X” stand I use, and yes, it might sound a little “too perfect”, aka, electronic.

When I used my setup today, I noticed that the room I was in was killing the high frequencies (shaggy carpeting, and speakers on the carpet). With just a few touches of buttons and knobs I was able to change the EQ to bump up the high frequencies – something you can’t do with an acoustic piano.

My takeaway from this month of playing and performing with different pianos at different venues is that unless the on-site piano is of good quality and I’ve had the chance to practice on it, I would much rather haul my own setup and be able to control the sound as much as possible.

Nespresso VertuoLine Intenso

I ordered a sleeve of the new VertuoLine Intenso capsules. On Nespresso’s 1 through 11 intensity scale, this one is rated at a 9 – currently their most “intense” offering for a regular coffee for the VertuoLine machines.

It was waiting for me upon my return from a trip to Anchorage and I tried it out this morning. Over the past several years I’ve been shying away from dark roasts because I’ve noticed that medium roasts tend to have better flavor and aren’t as harsh. (Though this might have more to do with simply poor roasting.)

What I found with the Intenso is that there is none of the offensive harsh bitterness and burnt taste that I so frequently find in dark roasts. It is quite smooth and has a good aroma and flavor. It is quite a bit like drinking a half-strength espresso (similar to an Americano, but stronger). It has a deep, dark color to complement the taste and aroma. I think I like it better than the Stormio, the next most intense coffee in the line. Stormio, to me, has some of the characteristics that I don’t like about dark roasts. YMMV.

Review: Out of Sorts–Making Peace with an Evolving Faith

Out of Sorts: Making Peace with an Evolving Faith by Sarah Bessey
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Those whose first memories of their lives include sitting in church may find this book quite helpful as they too, find that reality isn't quite so neatly organized into distinct categories as they might have heard. Religious education, whether it was through Sunday School, VBS, children's sermons, or whatever it may have been, was well-meaning and quite a bit of it was good. But there is often an overemphasis on certainty, on either-or thinking, of an us-vs-them categorization of the world, and an emphasis on "ministry work" over "regular jobs."

Many people are fine with this type of worldview. But many others are not, and as they mature and emerge into a world that doesn't revolve around church life, questions arise. What are they to do with such questions, creeping doubts, and ambiguity?

This book is Sarah Bessey's autobiographical look at how she sorted through her life that turned into "Out of Sorts" when she too, faced a world that was not quite what growing up in church had led her to believe it would be. Her desire is for her readers to be able to use her experiences as inspiration to work through sorting through their own religious artifacts and baggage -- figure out what is still worth keeping, and learn to let go of the things that are no longer helpful, things that are useless, and things that may even be harmful. Are there new practices and traditions that might help a person continue in discipleship and spiritual growth?

Even though she writes accessibly and in a conversational tone, the subjects she tackles are not light. She deals with questions of theodicy, biblical inerrancy and hermeneutics, ecclesiology (the church), the nature and work of the Spirit, vocation and calling, social justice - to name a few.

Sorting through the past and present of faith is an ongoing process. It will probably continue for the rest of each person's life. The key is to "making peace with an evolving faith" (subtitle).

(Based on ARC.)

View all my reviews

Change of Seasons

I look at the calendar and notice that the beginning of Autumn, according to the solar cycle, is a week away. But I can feel the autumn chill in the air today, here in Southeast Alaska, with rain dripping down and forecasts telling me to be on watch for heavy rains and strong winds later today and tomorrow.

Some (many, I’m led to believe) people loathe the end of summer. It signals shorter daylight hours, cooler temperatures leading into cold ones, and frequently more clouds and less sunshine. Summer connotes play and care-free, at least in minds, if not in actual living. Summer evokes warmth and happiness. On the other hand autumn signals the beginning of an end – of the year but metaphorically a death with the death and decay of plants and leaves. Autumn and winter, with its grayness can be sad and depressing.

I’m the other way – one of the rare ones, or so I’m told. I don’t much care for summer and all the brightness and cheer. I like the melancholy and quiet of darkness. I like the calm that settles outside as people disappear from public and remain in their homes. I feel more virtuous in going outside when others seek shelter from the elements. I welcome autumn and winter.

Seasonal changes can have physical and psychological effects on people. The change in light, temperature, air pressure, and humidity can affect how a person feels, in body and in mind.

Most of us tend to avoid change. We prefer stability and predictability. But seasons change and so do our lives. Some of us are more open to it. But there are some that resist it with every fiber of their being, having to be dragged into it.

Children and younger people, I think, are more open and accepting of change. That’s all they know. But as we grow older, we get settled and we get comfortable. We might not like everything about how things are, but we begin to look upon change, any change, with fear and suspicion. Change only happens begrudgingly. Some of us are more prone to it, because of earlier experiences, and due to our personality and temperaments.

I don’t want to be the kind of person that automatically resists change. I’ve known and experienced far too many people who do. It’s hard on others who have to deal with that kind of person.

I’m going through a season of life change. In a few days our home will be empty-nested for the first time as both our daughters will be out on their own simultaneously, for the first time ever. I’ve had more than a few nights of worry and anxiety during the past couple of months in particular. Yes, the older one was away at college for a few years, but she stayed home last year while the younger one went away for her first year.

For around two decades, our kids have been “our kids.” I had at least the illusion that I could keep them safe and secure. But as they go out on their own, the realization is hitting that they really are their own persons and that any illusion and fantasy that I had of them being forever in my bubble, is broken.

I want to hold on to what I know and what I’ve been comfortable with. But I know change is inevitable. I know that if I don’t practice accepting change, I’ll become the kind of person that I don’t want to be. I don’t want to become stubborn and unmoving as seasons change in my life. A few more decades down the line, I don’t want my resistance to end up a burden to my daughters and others around me.

When facing fear and anxiety my inclination is to become psychologically paralyzed. My preference is to isolate myself, binge on TV, stay in bed, etc. But I know from experience that that will only send me down a far worse path.

So I choose to accept changes as they come. I may never come to the point of welcoming them, but I choose to not resist. I will practice acceptance today in order to remain flexible in how I approach and encounter seasons as they change in the future. I choose to live life actively, rather than watch as a spectator, complaining about what I’m seeing.

Review – The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith

The Naked Anabaptist: The Bare Essentials of a Radical Faith by Stuart Murray
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I've been seeing increasing mentions of Anabaptists recently. Like many American Christians, probably the only associative reference I have of Anabaptists are groups such as the Amish, Mennonites, and Quakers. This book was a good introduction on some of the history, the core values, and how these values are practiced in contemporary society.

The title The Naked Anabaptist comes from the purpose of the book: to strip away group and cultural accouterments that are associated with forms of Anabaptism and get at the core values that are shared across most, if not all, who belong to it. There are seven such values, and among them are what is likely familiar to many Christians: peacemaking, community, and social justice. There are others that are less familiar, but no less important such as methods of reading and interpreting scripture; engaging the public sphere; and ministry according to gifts, not culturally and culturally-informed theologically based roles (aka, gender roles, women's roles in the church, etc.).

One of the key principles used throughout the book is the distinction between Christianity and Christendom. The first is faithful to Jesus and gospel; the second is a creation of (literally) men. The former is the first two to three centuries of the Church; the latter is what happened when Church and Rome came together and continues to be a priority of most Christian groups and denominations today. Even among those who claim separation of church and state, many look with nostalgia on the time when the public sphere had the imprimatur of the Church and vice versa, and the hierarchical structure taken from secular power reign in most formal church organizations. Anabaptists are very much for Christianity, but are strongly against Christendom.

The book ends with a chapter on some of the criticisms and critiques that Anabaptism has received, some of its shortcomings and dangers.

The book is evangelistic, but not proselytizing: i.e., it seeks to spread the good news that is found in Anabaptist values. And there are many. There are parts of the original gospel, hidden and minimized in many forms of more mainstream Christianity, that are emphasized in Anabaptist values. These can provide correctives to some skewed expressions of Christianity, and offer hope and a new vision to Christians disillusioned by what they see and don't see in current forms of popular Christianity. But it does not seek to turn people into Anabaptists. The room is big enough for many strands and expressions of Christianity. Anabaptist values can be incorporated into existing frameworks, providing a more robust and more genuine expressions of what it means to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ.

(This review is based on ARC supplied by the publisher through NetGalley.)

View all my reviews

Book Review - Broken: Restoring Trust Between the Sacred & the Secular

Broken: Restoring Trust Between the Sacred & the Secular by Greg Fromholz
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Trust is the foundation on which relationships are built. But we are not very good at it. Institutions and individuals have betrayed us. We have betrayed trust given to and received from others. We live in an environment permeated by fear. How can relationships possibly exist in such a climate?

Greg Fromholz examines the issue of trust and how to build it in Broken: Restoring Trust Between the Sacred & the Secular. He uses personal stories, Bible stories and passages, and research data to suggest ways in which we as individuals, groups, and churches can return to a trusting environment. The writing is engaging, and humor is frequently used to release tension in an otherwise heavy topic.

There are sixteen chapters across 222 pages (excluding endnotes). Each chapter discusses an aspect of trust - what hinders trust and what can help build it. Among the issues discussed are: forgiveness, fear, faithfulness, love, peace, and hope.

Gromholz issues a stinging indictment against the modern church and how it has communicated a separation between faith and trust, and how faith (the believing, intellectual kind) has become the most important thing in many churches. He that because faith has become so predominant, it has diminished and has even hidden love in the life of the church, communicating to any who participate and observe that love isn't that important to God. His indictment extends to the structures and systems that the church has placed around herself, to protect and to control; that such systems have replaced love in churches and in church life. The implicit message: where systems, structures, and control are important, trust is not. Organizations, small and large, seek to conserve and maintain -- by their very nature, they fear freedom. But without freedom, there can be no trust.

God allows great freedom to untrustworthy humans. God does not impose his will, but seeks to collaborate with humanity. As the bride of Christ, the church (and her individual members) should take a look at how God relates to us and seek to model our interactions with the world around us in the same way. This, I believe, is the message that Fromholz is communicating to his audience through this book.

View all my reviews

Book Review: Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts: Seven Questions to Ask Before -- and After -- You Marry

Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts: Seven Questions to Ask Before -- and After -- You Marry by Les Parrott
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I warily approach marriage and relationship books from religious perspectives. I've encountered too many of them that promote a "biblical" perspective and ignore, discount, and dismiss findings from science and academics. I'm happy to report that this book takes current research and findings from the sciences and academia as priorities. It is informed by what is found in the Bible and its Christian interpretations, but it does not attempt to base its authority in the Bible.

For example, in the Question 2 chapter there is material discussing cohabitation. The Parrotts do not use judgmental terms, nor do they bring in biblical perspectives, but provides sociological and psychological evidence in their recommendation against it. They do not condemn it our call it "sin" or (especially) "living in sin" but sees it as something that is common in society but perhaps may not be in the best interests of couples from a scientific perspective.

I own an earlier edition (2006) of this book. Much of the material is the same. The most significant change is in the integration of the SYMBIS (Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts) Assessment. A purchased book includes an access code for one couple to take the online assessment. The assessment is referenced throughout the book. Couples who have taken it prior to starting the book can refer to the results and use them as discussion points. An Appendix has been added giving an overview into SYMBIS and personality dynamics.

In the chapter Question Four discussing the topic of communication, material has been added discussing the problem of our electronic gadgets becoming barriers.

My biggest disappointment was with Question Five in which gender differences are discussed. On the positive side, gender roles are not prescribed nor are they discussed. The ideas of submission and headship are totally absent, which I see as a huge plus above many other "Christian marriage" material.

However the chapter does tend to paint in fairly balck-and-white terms personality, thinking, and behavioral style differences that are supposedly found between men and women. It defines feminism in terms of some of the radical 1970's era understandings (e.g., the abolition of gender), failing to recognize that this is one narrow perspective of feminism (albeit a common Christian misunderstanding of it). The chapter paints a broad, stereotypical portrait of men and women without recognizing that reality is far more nuanced and that broad traits identified with a particular gender often do not manifest so clearly in real people, or that real people usually have a combination of both "male" and "female" traits. What I could take away from this chapter was the advice to realize that I am not my spouse, and she thinks and sees the world differently than I do.

The final chapter is the only overtly spiritual/religious chapter. It discusses the role of faith and spirituality in a marriage relationship. The Parrotts see the integration of spirituality into a marriage as the ingredient that can turn a very good marriage into one that is great; a relationship that is intimate to one that can only be described as soul-mates. Once more the argument is made primarily from academic sources, not the Bible.

The problem with a "biblical marriage" is that there are so many interpretations and applications of it. Some may be good, while others can be bad to downright terrible. The Bible is not an authority on marriage: it describes marriage and many of them were quite bad. It was written across a huge span of time under many different cultural and sociological contexts. To use it as a primary source for marriage guidance today is problematic.

What I see being done in this book is far better: the ideals and purposes of marriage are broadly found in the Bible, but the specifics and practices of how that works out are found in the realms of science and sociology.

As this book does not contain overly religious material, I feel it is appropriate to a broad audience.

(This review is based on ARC supplied by the publisher through NetGalley.)

View all my reviews

Book Review: Eve

Eve by Wm. Paul Young
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

What is real and what is imagined, and how can we know which is which? This is the question that I arrived at by the end of the book.

I place Eve in a genre that combines sci-fi, fantasy, and spirituality. I best describe it as an imaginative re-telling and re-interpretation of the creation and fall accounts loosely based on Christian and Jewish traditions and mythologies.

This brings me to where I suspect many Christians will have a problem with this book: it does not follow the traditional (literal) biblical accounts; Paul Young takes great imaginative and fictional liberties in characterizations of both humans and God. Some may be bothered by the too-human characterization of God.

I think those of the Eastern and Orthodox traditions (vs. Roman/Western/Protestant) will have less of an issue with the way Young treats the biblical accounts. In this book, the biblical text is a starting point for exploration and discovery into "what might be," instead of a description of "what must be." God is described primarily in relational terms, rather than in law and holiness terms. Sin is a disease that must be healed, rather than law-breaking that must be judged and punished. God is a healer, far more and over a judge. The purpose of judgment is not to separate the righteous from the wicked, but to burn away all that is self-aligned (vs. God-aligned) within a person.

Inevitably comparisons will be made with Young's first book, The Shack. Both are re-imaginations of God, the Trinity, and their relationship with humans. Both attempt to show the primary attribute of God as love and his relationship with brokenness as The Healer. Where The Shack is set in a relatively small space, Eve encompasses multiple times and worlds. My opinion is that The Shack remains the better of the two.

There were some questions regarding the plot that remained unanswered. I think a few of these might be significant and thus diminished my opinion of Eve.

Some readers may fault the way in which Eve jumps from setting to setting and omitting what the reader wants to know to fully understand what is going on. But I think that this allows the reader to more fully identify with Lilly, the protagonist, and her confusion, her subsequent learning and development.

I enjoyed Eve and its imaginative retellings. However, I will caution anyone bothered by deviations from traditional (Western) biblical interpretations and theological perspectives to keep a very open mind when venturing into this book.

(This review is based on an ARC supplied by the publisher through NetGalley.)

View all my reviews

Brief Wrap-Up Summary of #GLS15

Another Global Leadership Summit has come and gone. What sticks in my mind after the two days? What were the highs and what were some of the lows?

The broad theme that sticks in my mind is that leadership is about helping transform the people you lead into better people. It isn’t primarily about managing tasks and finances, delegating, vision, or most of those things that is often seen as “leading.” Rather, it is about creating and maintaining relationships based on trust – not power, position, title, authority, etc. – that allow both the leader and those who follow to have positive interactions that mutually help to transform and grow themselves and the groups and organizations to which they belong.

As seems to be the pattern, the first day is relatively low-key when it comes to topics of religion and spirituality and inclusion of them in the talks and program. The two exceptions were at the beginning when Bill Hybels explains that GLS assumes a Christian worldview, and that in the same way the Summit respects people of other faiths and of no faith, he would like those who do not share the Christian faith to respect inclusion of Christianity in the Summit. The second exception was the last talk by Albert Tate which was the most “evangelistic” session of the entire Summit.

The second day included more “Christian” themes, but overall I don’t think it felt that “preachy.” In the same way people of other faiths or of no faith obtain their leadership values and principles from their authoritative sources, Christian leaders find principles in the text of the Bible and in the lives of those found within its pages, and in particular, Jesus. To use these should be no more or less offensive than invoking other religious figures and texts, or secular authorities. That said, the Summit includes speakers from various backgrounds. Many are Christian but from various expressions of it. The rest may practice other faiths or not profess any at all. The point of all this is that Bill Hybels practices what he preaches: we can all learn from one another and that religion should not be a barrier.

All the speakers come from large organizations and have accomplished some large things, even world-changing ones. Can what it said apply to small, even tiny, organizations? I think that for the most part, the information scales down. What was said isn’t about managing large organizations. Most of it really is about building and maintaining one-on-one relationships with other people. The application goes beyond merely global businesses and megachurches. Useful advice is found to apply to any unit that involves more than one person – families, small churches, workgroups, government offices, etc.

A few sessions that I appreciated above others.

• Session 2B with Ed Catmull of Pixar where he discussed how stories are the way we understand the world around us and how we communicate with one another. Life is more than just processing information.
• Session 3B with Dr. Brene’ Brown whose discussion also involved stories and narratives. She discussed how our brains are wired to make sense of all the bits of information that we receive by crafting narratives. Where there are holes, we make up things – and frequently they aren’t true. She discussed the “middle space” of our stories where we are too far in to back out, but not far enough to see the light at the end, and what we do in that middle space is vital. We need to understand and identify our emotions in that space, to have the courage and vulnerability to face the discomfort and discover what is true so that we can write the ending of the story that we want.
• Session 4A with Sallie Krawcheck in which she discussed the value and necessity of diversity (primarily gender diversity) in groups and teams. She discussed some of the challenges faced in promoting greater diversity.
• In response to the previous (Session 4A, diversity) as Bill Hybels came on stage and talked, he became quite passionate about the church and its lack of gender diversity. He specifically noted regrettably that in recent years churches have gone backwards when it came to women in church leadership. He sounded a call that churches ought to be leading culture when it comes to leadership equality among men and women.
• Session 5B with Sheila Heen in how to improve the feedback process by learning how to better receive feedback. Feedback is often dreaded or ignored and she discusses how this critical piece of developing individual and team effectiveness can be improved.
• Session 7A with Sam Adeyemi who uses the Feeding the Five-Thousand story to develop the concept that Jesus came to crush the power gaps between men and women, adults and children, and leaders and their followers. He discusses how Jesus confronts the traditional power structures of his day (which continue to exist in our modern cultures in our institutions) and turns them upside down. Jesus came to empower people to be more fully human.

There were a few lows as well.

• Foremost in my mind was Session 6 with Brian Houston of Hillsong. Bill Hybels asked Brian about his experience when it was learned that Brian’s father had abused a minor (which eventually turned out to be many more, and so much that Brian admits he really doesn’t know how many). The discussion on this question became all about Brian and how he suffered through the process, but has managed to work through it and continue to lead a successful church. Almost nothing was mentioned about any of the victims and their violations and suffering. What I heard in the discussion was that Brian was the victim of his father’s crime. The only thing really mentioned about the victim was that he didn’t want to cause any more trouble so asked that the police not be contacted, and then Brian says that later he learned that in that particular province the statute of limitations on sexual crimes never expires. Brian asked for continued prayer on this “issue” with the implication that this prayer was for the church and for his family. Again, nothing about the victims. Unlike the previous day’s gender equality issue in which Bill Hybels rose to take a stand, in this instance I thought it was abject failure. Here was an opportunity to use this huge Summit, seen globally, to take a strong stand against abuse, especially by religious figures, and to come to the victims’ sides. But there was nothing of the sort. I was terribly disappointed. This entire session with Brian Houston lost any credibility for me with this total and catastrophic failure.
• The other low in my mind was the final session with Craig Groeschel. The main content of his session was fine, but it was the “stuff” (or fluff) around it that I was unimpressed by. His illustrations struck of egotism and excessive machismo. And his manner of presentation reminded me, at best, of a hyped-up motivational speaker, and at worst, a less-than-honest salesperson.

On the balance, I do continue to believe the GLS is worth the time and cost to attend and will probably do so next year.

GLS15, Session 8, Craig Groeschel – Increasing leadership capacity

There is way more inside of you than you can possibly imagine. God has placed more in you than you can dream.

Increasing capacity. 

As your organization grows your mindset had to change. If you don't change your mindset, you become the limitation to growth and effectiveness. 

5 Cs of expanding leadership capacity. Choose one to improve during next year.

1. Confidence. Change your self-talk. Stop the negative self-talk. Take a step into the confidence supplied by God.

2. Connections. Relationships. You may be one relationship away from a change in destiny. Don't try to copy what others do. Learn how they think. Broaden your perspective. 

3. Competence. It may be in a blind spot. 

4. Character. Talent can get you to the top but only character will keep you there. We need to check our lives for "leaks." Where is our talk not matching our walk? 

5. Commitment. What you want determines what you are willing to do to accomplish it. 

GLS15, Session 7B, Liz Wiseman – harnessing strengths of rookie smarts

Is it possible that we are actually at our best when we know the least? When we were rookies?

When you don't know much, you ask a lot of questions, you are willing to learn, you value mentor relationships, you aren't too proud to ask for help. You are cautious, but work quickly in small steps. Desperation leads to innovation. 

Knowledge and experience are good but they lead to assumptions, and sometimes, bad ones. We can become so focused on what we're paying attention to that we miss important things going on around us. 

Challenging situations lead to satisfaction. Without challenge people can become disillusioned and leave. 

When people are challenged their motivation is to return to a comfortable equilibrium. If too stretched, they might let go. Or the person breaks. The right amount of challenge at the right rate is necessary. 

We need to be on the lookout for becoming too comfortable. Knowledge and experience can lead us to stagnation. We need to harness the positive aspects of being a rookie. 

Throw away your notes. Allow fresh thinking to come in. 

Ask questions. Don't provide answers.

Admit what you don't know. Be courageous and vulnerable. 

Let someone else lead. See the world through different eyes. Allow the newcomers to renew you.

Disqualify yourself. 

The rookie zone is not only where some of the best thinking happens, but where joy is found.

Lead your team into the unknown. Remain a learner. Create new beginnings. 

GLS15, Session 7A, Sam Adeyemi – Destroying the power gap

Deprivation creates insecurity. It can lead to pursuit of personal material security and external success. 

When God asks a question it's not because he doesn't know the answer. It's often to confront problems in our thinking. 

Even in Christian ministry the goal of leaders is often personal success - me. Christ's object of leadership was success of his followers. 

Leadership is about positive transformation of those who follow. The promise that leaders make to their followers should be this.

Secular leadership gravitate toward hierarchical power structures. It should not be so  with Christ's followers. Power distance leaves followers worth low self-esteem and fear of challenging the leader. There is less initiative-taking on the part of followers. 

Jesus crushed the power gap between men and women, adults and children, leaders and their followers. 

Jesus confronted power structures of his day. Leaders today should be confronting harmful power structures in our world. Jesus gave power away. Jesus' power structure is not about amassing it, but giving it away. It is not about creating distance between those with power and those who do not have, but fully empowering all. 

Leaders can't grow their organizations. Leaders can only help transform those who follow them. Those who follow have the power to generate growth. 

Jesus overturned the power structures of the world.