After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."(revelation7.9-10) it's nice to just take an idea and run with it a ways; see where it goes. i was thinking about this big worship gathering revealed by God and described by john when something gelled...
the apostle john, exiled on the island of patmos while his faith brothers are all being systematically murdered for their terrorist ties with the rabbi known as jeshua ben joseph, describes the worship crowd gathered as multicultural, multi-ethnic, multilinguistic and so on. a fairly heterogenous group, all standing there waving palm branches just like when Jesus arrived in jerusalem, only instead of crying 'save us' (hosanna) they are proclaiming to whom salvation belongs.
but it's the white robes bit that really caught me, in light of all that comes before it. i suppose it's fair to say that white is Jesus' team colour, what with all that 'washes white as snow' talk. however, one might lose track of another possible significance of the multitudes clothed in white, defaulting to the simple truth that white shows dirt and can therefore only be seen as white when it is pure... the white stands for purity.
not that there's anything wrong with that.
so many things in our physical realm are not necessarily restricted to being only what they seem: take a simple beam of white light. we all remember the science class project where a beam of white light is directed into a glass prism which separates the colour spectrum of that beam of light and projects these colours on the wall adjacent to it. then there is, of course, the classic pink floyd album cover...
here's the thing, though: when we perceive a colour, we are really perceiving how just that band of the spectrum reflects back off of the coloured object: a green object only looks green because it is treated with something (paint, dye, whatever) that reflects only the green in a beam of white light.
a beam of white light contains all the colours of the spectrum in perfect balance and unity. it reflects off of the surface of something conducive representing this perfect balance and unity.
that the great multitude that no one can count, with representation from every nation, tribe, people and language, is singing salvation songs wearing white, reflecting the perfect brilliance of almighty God who is the only source of true light in the cosmos, suggests more than purity.
last week, vandals left a simple but poignant message on the steps of the church:
Escape from this Mind Prison
i almost put it on the sign out front, not as some kind of a thumb-your-nose-back gesture against those who took the care to stencil the letters and then spray paint them, but as an invitation to those carrying a load or burden that continues to box in their perspective, framing it in pain, fallenness, broken faith, betrayal and resultant mistrust, as well as basic lack or loss of hope.
the writer of the book of hebrews challenges us (in hebrews 10.25) to be instrumental in opening each others’ minds, inspiring each other to revolution and beautiful action.
(this is explored a bit further in the blogpost 'you say you want a revolution' and can be found by clickinghere. )
when I think about the message that was neatly and poetically written on the sidewalk, I am reminded once again that the power of darkness in our world has some struggling with the difference between freedom and slavery: the worship gathering affords us the opportunity to escape from the prison of hopelessness and pain that masquerades as life here, just east of Eden, gaining some perspective in order to more meaningfully serve love and hope to those still pacing back and forth in their cages.
a friend was in my office one day and he presented me with a poser: when you buy a car, you need to take it in every six months or your warranty is void. some employers require employees to get a yearly physical as part of their contract agreement. so why doesn't the church require people to come in for a check up on their marriage once or twice a year?
it was a good question, for which i did not have a good answer.
***
in his classic book zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, robert pirsig discusses what he believes are the fundamental differences between classicism and romanticism.
The romantic mode is primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, intuitive. Feelings rather than facts predominate. 'Art' when it is opposed to 'Science' is often romantic. It does not proceed by reason or by laws. It proceeds by feeling, intuition and aesthetic conscience...
The classic mode, by contrast, proceeds by reason and by laws- which are themselves underlying forms of thought and behaviour...
Although motorcycle riding is romantic, motorcycle maintenance is purely classic.
There is a classic aesthetic which romantics often miss because of its subtlety. The classic style is straightforward, unadorned, unemotional, economical and carefully proportioned. Its purpose is not to inspire emotionally, but to bring order out of chaos and make the unknown known. It is not an aesthetically free and natural style. It is aesthetically restrained. Everything is under control. Its value is measured in terms of the skill with which this control is maintained...
Persons tend to think and feel exclusively in one mode or the other and in doing so tend to misunderstand and underestimate what the other mode is all about... (Pirsig, p67)
i was intrigued by the common thread that seemed to be pulling some personal reading, a personal conversation and a pile of relational circumstance together, synthesizing them into an idea that i could grasp. as i thought about marriage relationships and the need for ongoing and intentional connection within them, as well as regular diagnostic exercise, the thought crystalized:
in order to enjoy a longer ride (romantic), we need to tend to the necessary maintenance (classic). classicism is the key to a more satisfying and prolonged romance.
not wanting to oversimplify relational dynamics, i would contend that, in some way, every action and interaction taking place between a man and woman contributes to either a bond between them or its opposite: a rift.
looking closely at the biblical story of david and michal (2 samuel 6.14-23) i recognized a single, rather straightforward problem that results in a fight so final that a rift is formed between them where a bond once existed- a rift which endures the rest of their days and leaves them childless together. the problem is this:
somewhere along their way, they stop relating to each other.
they lose track of the fact that they are one flesh, meant to share intimately together on all levels. they stop connecting. they stop feeding the living thing that is the relationship which has been established between them over years of knowing and growing.
having not attended to the basic classical maintenance needs within the relationship, the romance has ended, leaving a man and woman shouting at each other in the same street that, just hours earlier, has been the location for a great celebration of God's favour and restorative power.
it's a sad story and the sadness is increased by two things: 1) its preventability- things didn't need to go this way 2) its familiarity- we see the same things happen daily within our relational circles. just as i sat in my office listening to my friend share of his own marital journey, we all find ourselves sitting together, either sharing our own tales of marital disappointment, confusion and pain, or listening to those of another. the story of david and michal is neither the first, nor last story of distance that has opened up between a man and a woman.
No one can escape ‘bad’ moments in marriage, but no one is meant to drown in the difficulty. (Dan B Allender)
in his book The 10 Conversations You Must Have Before You Get Married, dr. guy grenier opens with a list of 15 rules of good communication (which are really strategies for meaningful discourse) and they are fairly predictable: 7 productive communication strategies to embrace 4 destructive communication tendencies to avoid 2 anger control strategies to apply, and 2 long-term maintenance strategies to lock in...
long-term maintenance strategies? yep, with a rather familiar analogy that brings us full circle: You've probably heard that changing the oil in your car is the single most useful thing you can do to maintain your vehicle. Every five thousand miles or ten thousand kilometres, you're supposed to do this basic, standard maintenance. Depending on how much you drive, this typically means an oil change every three or four months. Metaphorically, this type of regular maintenance is what you want to be doing with your relationship as well. To extend the metaphor a bit, in the same way that a regular oil change is perhaps the best thing you can do for your car, checking in with your partner as to the ongoing status of the relationship may also be the best possible approach to long-term relationship maintenance you can take...
"How we doin'?" conversations prevent lingering resentments from coming to full flower by ensuring that there are regular opportunities to deal with upsetting issues. They demand a culture of problem solving in the relationship and dramatically reduce the possibility of issue avoidance and the use of passive-aggressive strategies. Essentially, "How we doin'?" conversations make being frank and candid with each other a regular and expected event rather than one that's exceptional. (Grenier pp63-64)
so what if everyone who is married made a 'diagnostic' appointment once a year to spend an hour just talking together with someone who was there to help them explore the existing relationship between husband and wife and attend to some possible maintenance needs that exist within the marriage and which may be keeping that thing from really flying down that curving road that stretches from now 'til death do us part?'
*note: to celebrate their 30th anniversary, my mother and father rode a motorcycle diagonally across the continent, from british columbia to the tip of the florida keys. it took them thirty days to make the round trip. that was twenty years ago and they still ride the bike together. that's what i'm talking about.
Who am I? They often tell me I stepped from my cell's confinement Calmly, cheerfully, firmly, Like a squire from his country-house. Who am I? They often tell me I used to speak to my warders Freely and friendly and clearly, As though it were mine to command. Who am I? They also tell me I bore the days of misfortune Equally, smilingly, proudly, Like one accustomed to win.
Am I then really all that which other men tell of? Or am I only what I myself know of myself? Restless and longing and sick, like a bird in a cage, Struggling for breath, as though hands were Compressing my throat, Yearning for colors, for flowers, for voices of birds, Thirsting for words of kindness, for neighborliness, Tossing in expectation of great events, Powerlessly trembling for friends at an infinite distance, Weary and empty at praying, at thinking, at making, Faint, and ready to say farewell to it all?
Who am I? This or the other? Am I one person today and tomorrow another? Am I both at once? A hypocrite before others, And before myself a contemptibly woebegone weakling? Or is something within me still like a beaten army, Fleeing in disorder from victory already achieved? Who am I? They mock me, these lonely questions of mine. Whoever I am, Thou knowest, O God, I am Thine!
at the recent Global Leadership Summit, i found myself sitting, once again, in a session where someone smart and together challenged the rest of us to embrace balance in our lives if we are to succeed beyond mere survival in our leadership exploits.
being what i like to call chronically overextended, i heard the message, recognized it was for me, and logged it away. so when the guy who had been charged with transitioning us from session to session through some presumed teachable moments said 'let's take a couple minutes to just hear from God' i was ready to check out because, after all, i had already heard from him and he was reminding me of some things of which i was already aware and in a perpetual battle with the demands of life to apply.
but in the few minutes taken, God said something else.
the message was rather simple and direct: go to bed at night and read your bible in the morning.
i did NOT see that one coming.
see, late at night is when i often play catch-up ball. answer emails, read books for classes, blog, listen to music- i've always stayed up late. late at night is even when i have historically read my bible...
except when its too late and i'm too tired, having attended to everything else. that's when the justifications defaults pop-up. the best one is
in the interest of balance, i should probably just go to sleep now.
thereare a couple of compromises that are tied for second, should the best one not be able to continue its reign. they both involve doing spiritual disciplines like prayer or bible reading for a minute or two before falling asleep.
not much of a spiritual growth regimen.
so when God invited me to just switch it up, going to bed at night and reading my bible in the morning, i found myself and my life radically reoriented in a couple rather necessary ways:
1) going to bed at a decent time is an act of faith- a form of ongoing sabbath that implies by its practice that i believe in my God to sustain me- indeed, in some cases to speed me- through the responsibilities and challenges of each day, attending to it all in the time allotted. this has required greater discipline and some important reprioritization with careful attention to the time wasting that needs to be trimmed off of the edges of things.
2) beginning each day with scripture has become like starting it off with a good, balanced breakfast. i have fuel for the day which powers me through it with the perspective that i need in order to make the very action of living, worship offered in spirit and in truth.
and living life- giving away love and hope in service of the people placed in our path- is that to which we've been called into existence to do by God's power for God's glory, right?
i had an opportunity to engage in some interesting dialogue with a friend of mine the other day. it all began with a link to a fun site called The Brick Testament.on this site we find edited highlights of the bible, all illustrated with tableaux created out of lego blocks.
but why is God frowning?
it's not that i think God always smiles- that wouldn't be a real person. however, neither is a God who is perpetually frowning. i mean, why would God say that everything was good and very good if the divine was actually uniformly displeased?
my friend shared some thoughts:
I do believe that God does not have a lot to smile about when He looks at Canada.
Let's be honest about it - we are a nation of luke-warm believers. I don't think He is smiling much when He thinks about spewing us out of His mouth.
When the Bible tells us to "run the race", how many of us do you feel are actually running to win? I think we are power walking at best some of the time. How many of us praise Him as we should - He created us and protects us . How many of us truly walk in obedience - He sacrificed his only Son for our sins. How many of us search the scriptures daily and spend a significant amount of time in prayer - can any of us say as the Psalmist "As the deer panteth for the water, so my soul longeth after thee" or as Paul wrote "That I may know Him and the power of His resurection and the fellowship of His suffering"
The race that I am in - I certainly am not running. I know that is a choice of mine - I own that 100%.
I am placing no judgement or condemnation on anyone - this is just my perspective and I thought I would share it with you as my friend.
yeah, there is much to frown at in canada and around the world.
however, as he pointed out, the lordship issues are our own. the fact that we are unfaithful, disobedient and spiritually flacid is due to the choices we make- our stewardship of God's greatest gift next to life itself: our free will.
when our kids make decisions that represent some kind of sell out or compromise- the turning from what they know to be true in favour of what they just want to do- i think that we as parents typically have some degree of frustration, sure, but we also love our kids and try to walk them through this stuff, affording them grace and mercy that is only God's to give.
i think that in light of all the willful disobedience and disregard for love and provision, it's more likely that God's eyebrows / \ in sadness, disappointment and teeth gnashing pain, than they go \ / in anger, judgement and retribution. that's how i, with only a small portion of love, grace and mercy, respond to mistakes in the lives of those i love...
Jesus had a bit to say on this one in matthew 7.9-11
"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
interesting- this passage directly follows some of Jesus' teaching on judgement.
here's something to think about: God has agreed to withhold judgement from the earth until that final day. see, grace is really a breach of justice... 'unmerited favour' of God. God cannot be both gracious and impartial because they are polar opposites. we don't get what we deserve and will continue to live under the canopy of God's mercy until there's nothing left to say, no cases left to plead, no intercessions left to be made. then, and only then, will God rise up from the mercy seat and separate the sheep from the goats... yet even then, i can't imagine his eyebrows furrowed with the chill of retribution. not when it means losing his beloved forever. i think the expression of God will contain much more pain and sacrifice and utter hopelessness than sanctimonial fury.
speaking from experience, i think we frown at ourselves far more than God frowns at us.
it is on cold, dark, rainy nights when i am deeply in need and yet find the prospect of venturing out into the abyss for a dine-in experience overwhelming, that i am most ready for the good news that is pizza, and it is at these times that i am most grateful for those who will bring the pizza to me free of charge.
free delivery is awesome.
it’s not that i want my pizza free- i’m happy to pay for it- i just don’t have what it takes on nights like that to go get it myself… i’m more likely to just be hungry and miserable.
that’s why, if we had a family pizza place, i would offer free delivery… because i know what it’s like to need something and yet to be overwhelmed by the things that stand in the way of getting what i need. see, it’s not that people are avoiding the transaction- that exchange where they give of that which they have in exchange for that which they need- it’s that they are more likely to engage in this life-giving transaction if the transaction itself is brought to them.
sure- we could stick to our guns and keep our exclusively dine-in establishment going for the regular dine-in crowd (for both those our regular clientele and those who like to sample a variety of dine-in experiences) OR we could also endeavor to make our pizza available to those who are hungry and are, for reasons of their own, unable to or uninterested in coming to our fine restaurant.
it would all come down to this: what’s the focus of our pizza business: to provide a dining experience or to get our pizzas into people?
