As a follow up to a previous post let me give one example of how a “good” reading of a text might be better than a “right” reading of one. In order to keep this post short, I’m going to omit some details and paint in broad strokes.

Let’s take a look at Matthew 25:31-46. This is Jesus’ oft quoted teaching about the sheep and the goats. The traditional interpretation is that at the final judgment we will be evaluated based upon whether or not we took care of the “least of these” who were actually Jesus in disguise (so to speak). This interpretation of the text has inspired countless acts of compassion and benevolent work among the poor.

But there is another way to read this text. In Matthew 10:40-42, as Jesus is sending out the twelve he says,

“40 “He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41 Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. 42 And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.”

Jesus refers to his disciples as “these little ones.” Anyone who gives them a cup of cold water because they belong to Jesus will be rewarded. This is very similar to what he says in Matthew 25. Furthermore, in Matthew 12:48-50, Jesus describes his brothers as those who hear his message and obey it. In Matthew 25:40, Jesus describes the “least of these” as his brothers. You see where I’m going with this? To accept or reject Jesus’ disciples is to accept or reject him. “What you did or didn’t do for the ‘least of these’ you did or did not do for me.”

It seems more probable that based upon the the larger context of Matthew that in Matt. 25 Jesus is talking about how non-Christians will be judged based upon their treatment of Jesus’ disciples rather than being about how we are judged based upon our treatment of the poor.

(Of course, I’m not saying that God doesn’t care about how we treat the poor. There are plenty of other passages that make that point. I’m simply suggesting that this is not one of those passages.)

Could it be that those who quote this text to explain their work among the poor are basing their activity upon a misreading of this text? Their reading is wrong, yet their interpretation is good. In this sense, those who are transformed by seeing Jesus in the eyes of the poor have discovered a kind of truth that my “right” reading of this text doesn’t deliver.

Which one do you want to go with in this case?

According to Greg Hawkins and the folks who did the reveal study at Willow Creek, the number one most catalytic spiritual practice for moving people toward Christlikenss is . . .

daily Bible reading and reflection.

Let’s take the following statements out for a walk and see if they bark:

Any interpretation of scripture that equips us for Christlikeness is a valid one. I don’t care what your professor told you, there is a difference between a “right” reading of scripture and a “good” reading. Any reading of Scripture that shapes us positively into the image of Christ is a good one. Truth must be defined more by its ability to transform than its theoretical correctness. Biblical truth that doesn’t transform isn’t really true. An interpretation of scripture should be judged as “true” based upon the kind of life it motivates the church to live, not on how many scholars agree with the interpretation. You shall know an interpretation by its fruit.

Agree or disagree? Why?

Check out this great interview that Greg Taylor did with Richard and Ida Bozonoona from Uganda. I love their hearts and their ministry. I’m proud that Garnett is participating in their work.

You can also find it on the Garnett podcast.

I’m sitting on our back porch. Multiple birds are singing competing tunes. Disharmony has never been so lovely. I just finished a nice dinner of grilled chicken, lentils, yellow bell peppers, and guacamole. Heather is painting. The boys have left a bunch of smashed hickory nuts on the concrete. They used my hammer. This is the best time of the year to sit outside in Oklahoma. My neighbor just mowed his lawn. It’s greener and has less weeds than mine. We’ve started a compost pile in the back corner of our yard. It hasn’t produced any dirt yet, but it’s only been two days. Heather says I should be more patient. Our cat is catting around the neighborhood. Now she’s back. I just read what I’ve written to Heather. She doesn’t think “disharmony” is a word. I disagree and so does google.

Finally, a church U2 fans can proudly attend.

What is your favorite Sports Illustrated cover of all time?

You can browse them here.

This one is mine.

I’ve said before that one of the more challenging aspects of leading a church is knowing what to measure when evaluating how things are going. The two most common metrics are nickels and noses. We count the number of people and we count how much money they give each Sunday. Most churches count these things not because they’re the best indicators of vitality but because they are the easiest things to count. Without diminishing the importance of either one–it’s easy to say it’s not about the amount of money or the number of people until you run out of one or the other or both–I try to pay attention to others things as well that may give a bigger clue as to how things are really going.

One of the most important indicators of a church’s vitality is the number of guests there each Sunday. If week after week after week your church doesn’t have a new face in the crowd your church is going to die. Not overnight, and it may be one person at a time, but eventually it will die for lack of new blood, fresh ideas, and beginners energy.

It’s even better if the majority of the guests aren’t church hopping and shopping. If all your guests are from other churches then it may be a sign that your church is judged to be safe by disgruntled Christians who are fleeing churches that are trying new things. Not exactly the kind of people with whom I want to fill a room. It could also mean that your church is doing some really great things and the word has gotten out among the consumer Christians and they’ve come to check out your church just like they plan on checking out the new Bottomless Buffet restaurant that has just opened up in the shopping center across town. Again, not ideal, but it is a sign of vitality.

Even more important than the number of guests each is week is the number of guests who are there because someone from your church invited them come. This indicates a number of things. People from your church feel good enough about what’s going on there to talk about it with others and extend an invitation. It also means they’re spending time with people outside the church, hopefully with people who are chasing down the answers to some big questions.

Even more important than how many guests you have that have been invited by a friend is how many first time guests who have been invited by a friend come back a second, third and fourth time.

These may be obvious to the rest of you, but I have to remind myself to pay attention to these things.

What other indicators of vitality do you pay attention to?

Terry Rush is an amazing minister and good friend.

His thoughts on what to say to those who grieve are worth saving.

I had Kansas winning the whole thing before the tourney started. I see no reason to change that prediction now.

Update at the end of regulation: You have to be able to make your free throws! You also need to get the rebound when the other team misses their free throws! Kansas almost blew the comeback by not blocking out.

Update at the end of overtime: Great game. If I were Billy Packer I would point out to you that I predicted Kansas would win. I love how Packer spends half the game saying that Memphis needs to stop setting screens for Rose and then when they go one possession without setting a screen for him, he talks about what a brilliant move it is to stop setting screens.