The Lord is Our Host: A New Look at Psalm 23

Psalm 23:5-6

⁵    You prepare a table before me
    in the presence of my enemies;
     you anoint            my head with oil;
                                  my cup overflows.
⁶ Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
          all the days of my life,
                 and I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

Comments:

Psalm 23 is usually referred to as “The Shepherd Psalm” for good reason (v.1-4), but it also contains the imagery of host and honored guest (v. 5-6). This second aspect of Psalm 23 gets very little attention compared to the first. However, there are a number of similarities between the two.

The shepherd shows the sheep hospitality by providing good food, drink, and a comfortable place to rest (v.1-3). The shepherd also offers the sheep protection as they journey on good paths that reflect well on the character of the shepherd (v.3-4).

The host similarly provides a meal (table and cup, v.5-6) and appropriate refreshment and honor to the guest (v.6) as seen in not just the table preparations but the anointing with oil. However, the Lord as our Host does more than that. In the ancient Middle Eastern culture “the law of hospitality” was supreme and made the host is responsible to offer protection to those who shelter in his home. The Lord as host in this psalm not only protects the guest from enemies, but vindicates the guest in their presence (v. 5). This is no hurried meal snatched in the anxiety of imminent attack, but a humanized form of the rest experienced by sheep whose shepherd has led them to green pastures. Spurgeon, the great 19^th Century preacher, when commenting on this psalm, wrote,

“When a soldier is in the presence of his enemies, if he eats at all he snatches a hasty meal, and away he hastens to the fight. But observe: ‘Thou preparest a table,’ just as a servant does when she unfolds the damask cloth and displays the ornaments of the feast on an ordinary peaceful occasion. Nothing is hurried, there is no confusion, no disturbance, the enemy is at the door and yet God prepares a table, and the Christian sits down and eats as if everything were in perfect peace.”[1]

He leads us to his house and there where everyone can see he makes it clear that we are not only under his protection but are honored by his relational hospitality. Yet some might think that this is only our 15 minutes of fame and that soon we will be out on our own again. This is not what the psalm teaches. Nor is it some western hospitality that is done from a carefully orchestrated distance of individualism. Derek Kidner comments,

In the Old Testament world, to eat and drink at someone’s table created a bond of mutual loyalty, and could be the culminated token of a covenant…So to be God’s guest is to be more than an acquaintance, invited for a day. It is to live with Him.” [2]

The Lord is our host, both now and in the future. The psalmist makes it clear that he was currently participating in the banquet and would enjoy “dwelling” with the Lord in the future, even forever

This Lord who is our Host, is Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God, who has been revealed in the person of the Son, Jesus Christ. He is the Good Shepherd (John 10:11-18) and he is the one who has gone to Heaven to prepare a place for us and will come back for us one day and take us to the table prepared (John 14:1-3).

In being the Lord our Host, God in Christ by the Spirit invites us into the Trinitarian community where we find protection, honor, refreshing, and justice that remains. But what does this mean for those of us who follow such a Shepherd and worship such a Host? When followers of the Way were first called Christians it was intended in a derogatory sense (Acts 11:26) but described their commitment to live as “little Christs” determined to do what Jesus had done. Early Christian hospitality and care for the poor were renowned as they provided food, shelter, medical care, and worked for justice for all whom they met when there was no Motel 6 leaving the light on for them. They were givers more than takers, despite living under the often brutal persecution of the Roman Empire. Could his words in John 14:12, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father” have applied to hospitality? I think so.

So how do we become better hosts in today’s world? What will we risk? Whom will we protect and provision and send on their way and who will we allow to heal and help in our midst? Do we only open our homes and our lives to those who agree with us, look like us, and provide us some benefit? Or do we take Jesus’ words to heart, loving even our enemy for the sake of Christ?

How can those who don’t know the love of the Good Shepherd and Host learn of it and respond if not to that love as seen in us and extended to them? How will they know the welcome of Divine community if not embraced by the outposts of such community here on earth? In what ways should we welcome the beggar at our gate? I think we have a lot of reflection, thinking, and work to do.

Is not the best diplomacy that of a shared life and the honest and unguarded table? Will those who are open get burned in the process? Probably, but a better question to ask is, will those whose minds and gates are closed to the alien miss out on what God is doing? Absolutely.

This week we set aside a day to give thanks for what we have received from the Lord our Host. I have to confess that while I am often timid I am learning to open my eyes to the wonder of relational hospitality. In fact, I wonder what the Lord will do in our midst in the year to come. But first, I have to come into his midst by grace through the Word and the Spirit. Let’s encourage each other in this adventure!

^“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” (Hebrews 10:24-25)

This post may also be found on my Psalms-related blog, Psalms-Honest2God.

---

[1] Charles Spurgeon’s Treasury of David Vol. 1, page 400.

[2] Derek Kidner, Psalms 1-72, Tyndale OT Commentary series

ACME "Bait and Switch" (A Response)

Bait and Switch

The following post is a response to Paul Louis Metzger’s Patheos post Bait and Switch. In his article, he encourages Christians to not pretend to be relational merely to obtain conversions. The test of our relationality is whether we are willing to be friends with those who don’t accept Christianity and show no signs of interest. Will we be relational with non-believers over the long haul, or are we merely economic relaters who temporarily invest for a return and then reevaluate, cut our losses, and reinvest elsewhere? If we advertise friendship and caring and only deliver evangelism, to use Metzger’s terminology that is “bait and switch”. The Apostle Paul was truly relational with the Thessalonians, not spinning his message for personal or ecclesial gain.

For our appeal does not spring from error or impurity or any attempt to deceive, but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts. For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness… But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us. (1 Thessalonians 2:3-8)

As I read and considered Metzger’s concept of relational bait and switch I thought about ACME. Remember how in the old Roadrunner cartoons how the Coyote was always trying to bait the Roadrunner? ACME was the catalog company from whom the Coyote bought all his crazy Roadrunner-catching schemes.

 

 

 

 

He often put up signs advertising false detours, Roadrunner food, and painting fake tunnels on rock walls. The Roadrunner always seemed to be able to use the detours successfully. Yet when the Coyote tried to follow he always seemed to get hit by a train or some type of exploding device. Perhaps in a “bait and switch” scenario, people may still benefit from hearing the good news even if our motives and methodology fall short (Philippians 1:18) like the Roadrunner using the Coyote’s painted-on escape tunnel. However, in such situations, we are the ones who end up suffering like the Coyote for the sin of objectifying relationships and misrepresenting the love of Christ. We miss out on what we could have learned from the other specifically because they were different and yet human. They have more to say than, "Beep! Beep!"

 

Metzger writes, “I want to listen and learn from my friends of other paths. If I don’t listen to people, it is very difficult to communicate love, which is foundational to Jesus. Listening and mutual learning and loving go hand in hand.” This subject of listening is one I have explored at length on this blog in other posts.

The concept of “bait and switch” belies a transactional approach to our salvation that is less than Biblical. The thought that we are only able to be “relational” with those who share our world-view and/or our “otherworld”-view says that we have yet to apprehend the love of God who, “shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) Not only were we sinners but we had made ourselves his enemies and it was then he died for us, whether we would believe in him or not. Metzger says rightly, “Still, while I have no control over someone being converted to Christ, and will not try to force someone’s hand or heart, I do have control over whether or not I will love someone as myself.”

On this subject, Jesus’ treatment of Judas Iscariot is instructive, for he knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him and yet treated him no differently than the other disciples. I find it mind-blowing and heart-stretching that when the night of Jesus’ betrayal came, and Jesus said that one of those sharing the meal with him was the traitor—nobody knew who it was (Matthew 26:20-25; Mark 14:17-21; Luke 22:22-23).

Further, Jesus taught his followers to care for others, and sharing with a fully non-reciprocal mindset is also applicable to this discussion. We are not commanded to invest a limited amount of loving-kindness in hope of a spiritual response from another person. If we are to share what we have with no expectation of receiving back in either food or finances, can the sharing of ourselves be any different? [Note: Non-reciprocal does not deny that a relationship can and should evidence mutuality.]

We may not get any economic ROI, but perhaps we can gain a more relational understanding or benefit from another perspective. This is true especially of their toughest arguments and accusations; they can temper the steel of our character to love and serve even more like Christ in the future. Metzger notes that,

“Perhaps such critics don’t realize it, but they are also evangelizing me, when they try to encourage me to stop evangelizing: they are trying, in a sense, to “convert” me out of being an Evangelical, which as I said above involves concern for evangelistic witness.”

I agree with his assessment and don’t want to become “devangelized” (my term) by my critics nor desensitized to the conviction of the Holy Spirit that may come through those same people.

May the Lord remake our hearts—with the stuff of Heaven not the stuff of ACME—that we might love long, in a way that represents well the One who first loved us.

The Cancer of Control

Sometimes I think we are sick, with a deep and deadly disease that sends its tendrils out into every bit of potentially healthy tissue and infects it. Normally functioning cells are replaced by cells that are devoted to reproducing themselves as quickly and widely as possible, totally uncaring as to the damage caused to the whole body as a result. I am not talking about the Ebola epidemic in West Africa, nor am I talking about a medically diagnosed tumor be it breast, brain, or bone. Rather I am talking about a relational disease that is far more widespread, I refer to it as the “cancer of control.”

This type of relational cancer works in individuals to keep them from being fully persons in relationships with others. It works its procrustean power poison in all types of relationships be they marital, familial, occupational, educational, or governmental. The church is not immune to this disease and in fact, is a place where it thrives. This has happened throughout history as fallen humanity has struggled to exercise dominion in the world without surrendering itself to the higher authority of a loving and redemptive God.

There is nothing wrong with exercising God-given authority within the scope of our position and context if we have not given ourselves absolute authority. We must recognize that we too are under the authority of God. And he has modeled humble leadership for us in many ways, most profoundly in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. I have always been impressed that while the disciples would quarrel amongst themselves over who was the greatest while a Roman centurion (who knew about having authority and also being under authority) could immediately and humbly recognize that true authority was in Jesus, and submit himself to it.

In Matthew 8, after appealing for help for his paralyzed servant and receiving Jesus' pledge to come and heal him, the centurion gave an answer that amazed even Jesus,  

But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. ⁹ For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” ¹⁰ When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him,

“Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith…” (8:8-10)

And Jesus concludes this pericope by saying in v.13,  “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” I think it is good for us to notice the obvious fact that it was not because of the centurion’s ability to control the situation, but in response to his belief—his trust—that Jesus was enough for the situation that Jesus was amazed. Our situational control and great works are not what Jesus is looking for…but our childlike and reasoned trust is. 

When we are afraid and insecure we try to control our environment more than ever…and that includes the people around us. However, the collateral damage of our tendency to control can be catastrophic. May the Lord give us faith like the centurion, that we might humble ourselves instead of demanding, love generously instead of acting in fear, and make our pleas for others truly out of empathy for the sake of others and not for ourselves. This needs to be applied collectively not just as individuals.

The centurion in Capernaum knew something about the mutuality of authority that kept him from becoming a controlling person. It is something that as Paul addresses the responsibility we have in our various relationships, he speaks to those who have power, “Masters, treat your bondservants justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.” (Colossians 4:1) And the Apostle John addressed the root cause of the cancer of control, and its cure, when he wrote, ^“There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:18-19)

Let us humble ourselves rather than exalt ourselves. Let us love because we have been loved by Jesus. Let us trust all our pressing concerns into his care rather than our command. Let us see the Lord’s power at work!

“And the servant was healed at that very moment.” (Matthew 8:13)

Bridge-Building 3: Tolerances & Tighteners, Gaps & Grips

This post is an assigned in response to a 2012 post by Paul Louis Metzger entitled “Beyond Tolerance to Tenacious Love”

Much has been written about cultural tolerance and intolerance in the last 20 years. It is surprising that tolerance has almost come to mean intolerance. In relational terms, tolerance is what we call it when we can converse, and even work together, civilly, despite the fact that we have very different beliefs and values. Finding common points of agreement or safe meeting places is important if we are going to build effective bridges.

Unfortunately, in a tidal wave of political correctness, what was once tolerance (disagreeing civilly) has been twisted to require agreement with the current anti-conservative (politics), anti-Christian (religion), and anti-traditional values (morality) agenda and not speaking or advocating for anything that disagrees with it. I am a fan of the original definition and dismayed by the controlling influences of the second. Relational intolerance is when we can’t have a normal, civil, human, conversation with those who disagree with some position, belief, or behavior we hold dear. If those in power are intolerant they will tend to compel those who disagree to agree—using any methodology and coercive force available to them. This behavior is not relational at all.

In terms of physical bridge-building, the word “tolerance” has a number of different applications. Members meeting together atop a pier are to fit together according to the tolerance standards for the materials. With steel construction, gaps of more than 1/16 of an inch need to be shimmed and filled. Translating this metaphor of bridge-building tolerance into relational and cultural terms, “Tolerance and intolerance,” as Paul Louis Metzger suggests, “do not function as properties of beliefs but of behaviors. If tolerance were to be framed as a matter of acceptance of another person's (or tradition’s) belief system, then anyone who rejects my belief system as true would be intolerant.” However, that doesn't mean we can’t work out a protocol for how we can meet and work together. But we might need to drive slowly!

On the Southwest side of Portland, there is a bridge—a flyover exit ramp—connecting I-5 and Highway 217 that was notorious for traffic accidents related to a variety of tolerance issues. One such issue was the gap in the joint between two sections.

According to a May 2014 article by Joseph Rose on the Oregonian’s website, “The transportation agency [ODOT] said the road joint that is gradually splitting apart had likely contributed to more than a dozen crashes in three weeks. The teeth of the huge metal seam are popping up and may be tripping up the tires on vehicles traveling faster than the 35 mph advisory speed, especially in rainy weather, ODOT said.”[1]

As you can tell from the photo, the joint is not only separating but is not the same height. 

 Note ground-down fingers.

One of the things ODOT did to alleviate the problem besides posting warning signs for people to slow from freeway speeds to 35 mph, was to grind down the fingers on the high side of the joint. 

Finally, ODOT worked to increase the surface friction to prevent cars from losing traction when the road was wet. As Joseph Rose writes,

Because ODOT's friction tester is down for maintenance, we had Washington DOT perform testing with their equipment," said ODOT pavement management engineer John Coplantz in an email to managers. Tests on the deck seal showed it was losing its grip, with some readings showing it was below acceptable "friction values."

"These numbers by themselves do not necessarily represent an unsafe condition," Coplantz wrote. "However, roadway geometry, vehicle speeds, and driver expectations place a high demand on surface friction at this location."[2]

Just as bridge joints can shift and spread under load, it seems that the same things often happen in our relational/cultural bridge-building. We start to pull apart at the joints instead of clinging to each other and the road with the “tenacious love” Paul Louis Metzger speaks of. How wide are our gaps? How strong is our grip? The warning of wisdom tells us to slow down, watch the road, and let the bond of God's love keep us from pulling away and/or elevating ourselves above each other when we are under stress. We are in need of both care and compassion if we hope to begin and maintain a conversation in the midst of a culture that has forgotten how. While we can and should be able to entertain a thought without accepting it, as Aristotle suggests, we shouldn't treat people like that. 

[Ironically, this “intolerant” bridge is about three miles down the road from a neighborhood called, Metzger, Oregon.]

---

[1] http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2014/05/oregon_217_ramp_crashes_odot_w.html>

[2] Ibid.