Balance

Mobiles and Stabiles, Alexander Calder

Matthew 22:34-40

But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Today I want to talk about Alexander Calder, your toddler's favorite artist. Yes, I am assuming a lot in that last statement. I assumed that you have a child, who is indeed toddler-aged and that this young child can speak already... or at least speak enough to express his or her appreciation for 20th century American kinetic sculptors. If this is the case then you should be less impressed with my talent for guessing and more impressed with your baby's class, sophistication and impeccable taste in Modern Art. All jokes aside, most babies are fans of Alexander's artwork by extension. They may not be familiar with his actual works of art but they enjoy (and may possess) a sculpture that is based off of his creations. It is hanging right above their crib. Alexander Calder invented the Mobile. No, not the Zach Morris mobile phone, the Mobile sculpture hanging sculpture that hangs above your baby's crib. Babies love Mobiles because they capture the imagination with their diverse moving parts. A Mobile have been known to entertain babies, dogs, cats and adults who are intrigued with the simple things in life for hours upon hours. A Mobile is comprised of an array of intricate and separate pieces, all going in seemingly diverse directions, yet when you really consider it, there are just two pieces in a mobile sculpture. They are rods and weighted objects. Wikipedia describes it this way:

"A mobile is a type of kinetic sculpture constructed to take advantage of the principle of equilibrium. It consists of a number of rods, from which weighted objects or further rods hang. The objects hanging from the rods balance each other, so that the rods remain more or less horizontal. Each rod hangs from only one string, which gives it freedom to rotate about the string."

Jesus understood the Old Testament Law in the same way. The Law is comprised of an array of intricate and separate pieces, all going in seemingly diverse directions, yet when you really consider it, there are just two pieces in the Law. It was the great Rabbi Maimonides taught that there were 613 mitzvot (or commands) in the Biblical Laws, but for centuries readers recognized that there seemed to be innumerable rules, regulations and observations for the pious to adhere to. This was of special interests to the Pharisees and the Rabbinical tradition that would follow them because they expressed their religiosity through the study and fulfillment of the Law. Different rabbis approached the Law in different ways but all understood as the way to please God. So for a Pharisee to ask Rabbi Jesus to identify the greatest commandment was tantamount to asking him the most important question and the most seemingly unanswerable question at the same time. Surely this question would either stump Jesus or at least get him in trouble. But Jesus didn't see an uncoordinated disarray in the Law. On the contrary, Jesus saw God's finely crafted work of art in motion. He saw God's Mobile. Jesus the carpenter (a sculptor of wood himself) recognized that this handiwork was only crafted with two parts to it: loving God and loving your neighbor. Like a Mobile, the rest of the Law and the Prophets hang on these in chandelier-like fashion.

Love God

Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment.

The aspect of a Calder Mobile that makes it chandelier-esque is the it emerges from above and is suspended in mid air. That is the beauty of this type of artwork, it possesses a magic that goes beyond the natural by allowing our mind to flirt with the notion of defying gravity. Now it actually does obey gravity (that's what makes it hang) but the image of it not touching the ground alludes to floating. It makes us dream of flight. All of this is done by rods that anchor the sculpture to the ceiling. Unlike our usual notion of that word, this anchor is not something that holds down but rather uplifts. The Law is often seen as something that holds us down. It is imagined as an anchor that weighs us down with condemnation. Yet Jesus saw the beginning of the Law as something different. Jesus saw the beginning of the Law as the rod in Calder's mobiles. The Law begins with an anchor that uplifts us to the ceiling and beyond...to the heavens. The beginning of the Law holds us up from falling to the depths. With it we defy gravity and our natural state. With this anchor that is the beginning of the Law we upheld by the super-natural. The beginning of the Law is the love of God. In Matthew 22:34-40, Jesus says that we are uplifted by loving God with all of our heart, soul, and mind. Yet the other two synoptic Gospels word it a little differently. Luke 10:27 says:

So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’

While Mark 12:30 words it:
And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. 

Why do the other two gospels include the word strength? Jesus' concept itself is anchored in previous Scripture. He is roughly quoting The Law in Deuteronomy 6:5:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

Instead of noticing the differences in these texts, let us focus on the similarities. All share that we should love God with our heart and soul. Mathew says that we also should also love God with all of our mind while Deuteronomy says that we should love Him with all of our strength. Both Luke and Matthew include our mind and strength, so they agree with both Matthew and Deuteronomy. However I believe that Matthew and Deuteronomy' seeming contradiction is actually an agreement. It is all contingent on how we imagine the "mind." I believe that both mind and strength connote the will.  If someone has a "mind to do something", they are "willing it" to be so. More specifically they have a "strong will" or "strong mind" to make it so. So, loving God with our heart and soul is all about engaging our full will, and strong mind, in pursuit and affection toward Him. So we know about this uplifting love because God has revealed it to us (at least) four times in Scripture. This love of God uplifts us because it is based on God's love for us that He has revealed in his Word. We love God because he calls and causes us to love Him. Like the mobile, we are suspended from an anchor above.

Love your Neighbor

And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ 

If Calder's mobiles were just mobiles were just rods then they would be interesting to look up at but they would not be complete. Maybe they would be inspiring but they would not be fulfilling their function. The function of the rods is to uphold the "weighted objects." The rods are usually painted, which makes them act as a functionally visible structure to carry the bigger and colorful weighted objects. The beauty of the mobile is the seemingly unseen rods that enable the colorful and diverse shaped weighted objects as they float above us. The rods make the whole thing happen, but the "happening" that is made is the floating interplay of the flats sheets of colorful metal. Metal that we know would not naturally suspended from the earth where it not for the rod that anchors them above. Likewise the beginning of the Law (the Love of God) is fulfilled when we also love people. Loving God is the anchor that uplifts us past anger, vengeance, strife and hatred. It elevates our dealings with our neighbors. Once again Jesus' concept is anchored in the law that was revealed to Moses from above. This time Jesus quoted Leviticus 19:18:

You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

So both Jesus and Moses reveal to us that the will of God is that we love our neighbors as ourselves. Remember that this was working on the previous revelation that we were to love the God who has first loved us. If we know that God has considered us worthy of loving, then we probably have elevated our perception of our loveable-ness. We are to take that new perception of loveable-ness and apply it to others. This is not just out of blind allegiance to God but rather because we have new eyes to see that God indeed sees others as lovable as he sees us. We then are to love all of God's children in the open, forgiving and self sacrificial way that He loves them. It is a love that lifts them from the depths and pulls them closer to the anchor that suspends us from above.

One Love

On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

When Alexander Calder created his multifaceted, moving sculptures out of essentially two parts he did not create two works. He did not call them rods and weighted objects. That is what we call them. He called them Mobiles because they were one thing. The rods and weighted objects were fused together in cooperation to become one work of art. Likewise Picasso did not call his works paint and canvases; they were paintings. Any Master's masterpiece is not considered the sum of its parts but rather the parts transform into one new and beautiful thing. When the lawyer asked Jesus about the greatest commandment, Jesus responded by telling him about two commandments. But he really was explaining one thing. Even though their are hundreds of mitzvot in Scripture and Jesus boils them down to essentially two commands, we never describe it as "The Laws" but rather "The Law." Jesus then says that on these two commandments hang two other things; the Law and the Prophets. yet even the Law and the Prophets are two parts of one greater thing; the Word of God. All of the God's revealed Word to Mankind is founded upon the first three words of both of Jesus' commandments "You shall love." That's it...Love. Love is the commandment that God has given to mankind. Everything else in Scripture is an explanation and/or illustration of that love. Yes, that love can be tough love sometimes but this toughness is the steel chain that binds us to our anchor. It is the chain that reaches down for us least we should fall from the Grace that calls us. The constraints of this grace are not restrictive of our will, but rather free our will to love God.



Flamingo in Chicago's Federal Plaza. Alexander Calder

Mobility

Alexander Calder was not a one trick pony. Along with his mobiles he also created stabiles. These sculptures were the antithesis to his mobiles. Where mobiles were whimsical suspensions that moved through the air, stabiles were bulkier, solid structures that sat stationary, bolted to the ground. Sadly this is how most view the law of God. They see it as restrictive, heavy and unmovable. Indeed this is how the Pharisees and teachers of the Law in Jesus' time practiced their religion. Jesus criticized them for this in Matthew 23:4:

For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

The Pharisees were constructing stabiles when God was calling his people to be a mobile. Now I'd like to say that all of Jesus' disciples took heed to criticism of the Pharisees and lived out a religion that uplifted heavy burdens of the oppressed and aided those in distress. Many of those in that first generation of disciples did, but all to often the followers of Jesus throughout the ages have been known as the perpetrators of religious guilt and social rigidity. It is so much so the case that it is hard for me to think of how to teach Christianity without being "preachy" or just pushing the "rules." Ironically this is what we call "legalism." Now rules are important and so is structure, but only so when we can re-imagine them in the way that Jesus saw the true beginning and end of the Law. So ask yourself.: is your notion of Christianity focused on how remove burdens and barriers to God's love? Is your love of God completed in your love of your neighbors and even your enemies? Are you grabbing hold to the anchors above or are you just admiring them from below?

Old Testament Word & Image: Exodus 22:20-26 & Mark Vallen

No Human Being Is Illegal, Mark Vallen

Exodus 22:20-26

“You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.


I Am Not The Enemy, Mark Vallen

"You shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child. If you afflict them in any way, and they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry; 


Not Our Children, Mark Vallen

and My wrath will become hot, and I will kill you with the sword; your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.


Voices Of Justice, Mark Vallen

“If you lend money to any of My people who are poor among you, you shall not be like a moneylender to him; you shall not charge him interest. If you ever take your neighbor’s garment as a pledge, you shall return it to him before the sun goes down.

 

My Nature is Hunger, Mark Vallen

Subversion

Banksy of England £10 Notes, Banksy

Matthew 22:15-21

Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk. And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men. Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites? Show Me the tax money.”
So they brought Him a denarius.
And He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?”
They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”
And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

I've featured some of Banksy's images on this blog before but I've never written about him. It is ironic that this post is not about any of his spray paint, stencil works that the clandestine street artist has become famous for. It actually isn't about any of his public works. It is about a work of his that he stopped from going public. Yet I believe that captures the spirit of all of his work, irrespective to the medium used. Whether it be a spray painted image right under a cctv camera, a comical protest of the Gaza wall on the Gaza wall, or placing a live elephant that has been painted pink in the middle of the room: all Banksy pieces seem to have an overall unifying ethic to them. If you are thinking that it is "wittiness", the you are wrong. Wit is just a medium to achieve his means, like spray paint, a stencil or an elephant. This overarching principle and ultimate end of Banksy's work is subversion... in my humble opinion. What does Banksy want to subvert? Well, several things (including the art world system). Banksy's modus operandi is to undermine a thing (including a system) by showing it to itself and the world by using wit, juxtaposition, irony and placement. So why didn't Banksy ever go public with this particular subversive artwork (since he has broken the law plenty of times before)? According to the video, it is because he would be facing 10 years in jail if he did. He wasn't just poking his nose at the Queen by pushing the idea that Princess Diana was the "People's Princess or furthering a conspiracy theory that the British monarchy killed Princess Diana (which I don't believe by the way). Banksy was doing something more grave: he was messing with their money. When you mess with the government's money you do time... or worse. That has always been the case. Whether it be coinage or paper currency governments have taken the production of money by unauthorized sources to be a most grievous offence. This is in the case of rebellion or counterfeits. They also don't  take kindly to the destruction of currency either. Why? Well it is all contingent on what currency is. Currency is on its base level a government produced and distributed work of art. It is either a tiny metal sculpture (usually round and flattish) known as a coin or a drawing on paper (printed by an engraving) known as paper money (cash, greenbacks, cabbage, dead presidents, paper, cake, etc.). Both paper and metal money are certified as official by bearing the government image. The purpose for creating and distributing this art is to establish value. So, (outside of the barter system) the only way to engage in the market and conduct business is to use this government produced artworks. This is how a government manages a financial system. The government image on the currency reminds all that engage in financial transactions that the government protects the whole system. Any disturbance in this system can disrupt the operation/legitimacy of the government itself. So the goal of any government (of any economic system) is to keep the financial system running as smoothly as possible. So one can understand Banksy's hesitance to subvert that part of the system. Jesus was seen as a subversive figure in his day. The Pharisees were offended by his undermining the religious system by saying that he was the only way to God the Father. Likewise the Sadducees were threatened by his discussion of the impending doom that would befall the Temple in Jerusalem. The Herodians were a political faction rather than a religious one, but Christ's preaching of the Kingdom of Heaven seemed to antagonize the Kingdom of Herod and his patrons the Romans. But were all of these fears and suspicions founded in reality? Was Jesus the revolutionary figure that they imagined him to be? Well, yes and no. Let me explain. By "subversion" we mean the art of transforming the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy. If we use this definition then yes, Jesus was a subversive revolutionary. The question is, what power, authority, and hierarchy did Jesus come to subvert? The story in Matthew 22:15-21is the story about Jesus, money and government. It is in this narrative that we will discover Jesus' subversive and revolutionary intentions.

Front and back or Roman Denarius from Jesus' time

A Subversive Plot

This story begins with two unlikely allies conspiring together: the Herodians and Pharisees. Naturally these two factions had no common cause, but as the old saying goes "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." So having a common fear and disdain for Jesus drove the two to work together to bring about his demise. They thought that they might legally entrap him by asking him to mediate in a dispute between the two parties. The Herodians were (as their name states) backers of King Herod, who himself was backed by the Romans. Judea was a province of the Roman Empire and Herod was a King in name only. He was just the local face who would act as the mouthpiece for the tyrannical foreign rulers (like the Vichy regime in France during the Nazi occupation). So the Herodians should be thought of as the pro-Roman party. As in any of its imperial provinces, the Romans ran the financial market in Judea. The symbol of this was the metal currency, which like any government's coinage was stamped with the government image. Being that they were a governmental authority they also exacted taxes from the people. So with every financial transaction and every tax payment, the people of the Judea were reminded that they were conquered subjects of a foreign dictator.  They hated this fact. Yet the Romans weren't the only ones that the average Judean was paying taxes to. The temple tax still remained for all Jews in Jerusalem (and was even given voluntarily by Jews in the diaspora). This was a religious tax collected by the Jewish religious authorities for the operational upkeep and administration of the temple in Jerusalem. This was one of the few vestiges of the Jewish rule that the Romans didn't interfere with. So in the midst of their occupation of the Romans, the people of Judea were reminded of a bygone era when they governed themselves. However within a generation the Romans would attempt to end this tax and after their destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD they would divert all of the temple tax sent by the Jews in the diaspora back to Rome. This is the tension atmosphere that the Pharisees and Herodians tried to exploit to entrap Jesus. If he said that it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar then he might have incited the nationalistic anger of the crowds who despised their overlords. He would also appear to have been saying that one should not pay the tax to the temple of God. On the other hand if Jesus stated that it was not lawful to pay taxes to Caesar then he would have enraged the Roman powers that be. And as Banksy knows best, when you mess with the government's money you do time... or worse. Jesus would have been making a rebellious claim against their financial and government authority. This would have been okay if Jesus' intention was to subvert the power, authority, and hierarchy of Rome. After all, he knew that he would be martyred by Rome eventually. But Jesus' didn't come to subvert Rome. He came to undermine a much bigger system.       

Gold Roman Denarius Bearing the Image of Caesar

The Image of Caesar

Jesus recognized the deceptive intentions of the Herodians and Pharisees. He calls them hypocrites for their false appeals to seeking his advice as a fair minded arbitrator. They attempted to use his reputation as a peacemaker against him by posing as parties with competing interests. Yes they did have differing ideas and objectives (symbolized by the temple tax and the Roman taxes) but Jesus recognized that they had found a common bond in their goal of getting rid of him. Jesus disarms them in a witty and comedically subversive fashion. Since the whole argument centers around money, he asks that someone hand him a coin. So in answering the question of "who does this money belong to?" he looks at coin for clues... all the while insulting the Herodians and Pharisees' intelligence. Jesus acts as if he is running a Lost & Found department and sets out to establish the identity of the coins' owner. When certifying an ownership claim the first question is always "Is the owners name or identification on it?" So Jesus rhetorically asks the crowd “Whose image and inscription is this?” Just like any government issued currency, this coin has the government image on it, so the answer is “Caesar’s.” So Jesus says " Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s." This basically means, "well, if his face and name is on it then it must be his. Give it back to him then." Jesus then follows it with "and to God the things that are God’s.” In one sentence Jesus argued that we should give the secular authorities the things that they are due and God the things that he is due. It was not a question of whether we should pay the Roman tax or the temple tax. Jesus said that we are responsible for both. The follower of Christ is not asked to subvert or even take control of secular governmental authority. Jesus or the Apostles never recommend that we set up a certain system of governance outside in the lands that we find ourselves in. In fact St. Paul argues that the Christian should be a model citizen (when possible) and abstain from trouble-making. Our role is to support the role of the government authorities as keepers of the peace by being peacemakers ourselves. Ironically our "being good citizens" is where the greatest act of subversion lies. That fact that we are peacemakers does not display that we are loyal citizens of Rome, Judea, France, Germany or the United States. It actually shows that the government that we are obedient to is the Kingdom of God.


Ancient Judean Shekel

The Image of God

So this is where I jump the shark, so feel free to disagree with me. I believe that the greater truth of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 22:15-21was what he left unstated. maybe this is a bit of a reach but I feel that he implied the crux of his argument in an unstated parallel. When Jesus referring to the coin and taxation, Jesus asks "Whose image and inscription is this?” From this he decides what should be "rendered unto Caesar." But then he also tells us to render to God what is God's. I believe that Jesus was referring to more than a temple tax. Why? Well because there was not an operational Judean coin minted by the Jewish religious authority that he could ask "Whose image and inscription is this?" How then could one determine what was to be rendered unto God? Well, there was another government issued work of art in their midst that was given to assert value. This image bore the likeness and inscription of the King who issued it. This Kingdom is the subversive authority that Jesus worked on behalf of. It is the Kingdom of God. That work of art that bears the King's image is Mankind, for we are made in the image of God (Imago Dei). Being in the image of God we are called to inscribe His writing on our hearts and in our minds. We are then a new creation formed by the government of Heaven that gives value, meaning, truth and beauty to the world. The currency that we bring to the marketplace of ideas is the image of God and the Word of God that we bear. What do we owe the Lord, the King of Kings? We owe Him thing with his image and writing on it. We render ourselves to God. We give God our allegiance and the Kingdom of God our citizenship. And by "Kingdom of God" I do not just mean "Heaven, after we die." When I say Kingdom of God I also mean the present reality in the here and now. I mean God ruling our every interaction with others in light of our God's interaction with us. I mean the subversive kingdom that Jesus preached.

Banksy Currency

Subverting the System

By now you have heard me beat the repetitive drums of revolution over and over again. I have claimed that Jesus was engaged in subversion. Yet I have done more to explain what he didn't come to subvert and alluded to a bigger fish than Rome or any temporal power. Which system of established social order and structures of power, authority, and hierarchy did Christ come to transform? The overall system as we know it. Yet unlike Banksy's protest based on criticism of the lacks of several systems, Jesus' revolution is based on the strength of God's system. This holistic revamp of our approach to engaging life is best understood in the metaphor of a kingdom. The approach of living out the love that God has displayed in the sacrifice of His Son controls every aspect of our life. It is parallel to the way an empire (like Rome) controlled the lives of the Judeans, yet the control of God's kingdom expresses itself in the increase of freedom rather than the increase of oppression. The Kingdom of God as expressed in the love of Christ frees you from Sin and to Love. So furthering the objectives of the subversive Kingdom of God is to further the objectives of love, peace, humility, kindness and a host of other benefits for those around you. Jesus came to undermine the approach to life that builds divisions of hatred, war, selfish pride, cruelty and anything that separates God's creation from being brothers and sisters. Jesus came to subvert the system that stands in the way of the Kingdom of God.

The power that Jesus subverted was pursuit of power itself, because "Blessed are the meek." The authority that Jesus came to undermine was the greed for authority itself because "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all."

The hierarchy that Jesus came to dismantle was hierarchy that leads to division because "Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

That is how the King of Kings overtakes the world's kingdoms. He does it through humility, service and self sacrifice. He asked his disciples to humble themselves in service and in turn his disciples turned apostles asked their own disciples to do the same because Jesus was willing to humble himself to a death on the cross... all out of service. Jesus came to subvert our systems of power, authority and hierarchy and make us all one people. Yet he does not overthrow this system by exerting violence but rather by suffering from violence. He took the cross and nails rendered to him by sinful men so that he might take upon himself mankind's sin and render the men and women who follow him sinless. This is the upside down kingdom of God, where the King became our Servant. What shall we render to God? God asks that we give Him our lives and our sin... and our shame. In return He will subvert the power of Sin and Death and give us the eternal life of His Son.

Party Attire

From the installation "Party Time: Re-imagine America". Yinka Shonibare MBE

Matthew 22:1-14

And Jesus answered and spoke to them again by parables and said: “The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who arranged a marriage for his son,  and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding; and they were not willing to come. Again, he sent out other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and fatted cattle are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the wedding.”’ But they made light of it and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his business. And the rest seized his servants, treated them spitefully, and killed them. But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding is ready, but those who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the highways, and as many as you find, invite to the wedding.’ So those servants went out into the highways and gathered together all whom they found, both bad and good. And the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. So he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

The end result of the contemporary art of Yinka Shonibare and the storytelling of Jesus Christ are identical: nice clothes and a big meal. They both weave narratives in diverse media that culminate with a scene whose focal points involve ornate costumes surrounding an elaborate banquet table. To understand how the two separately came to corresponding images independently one must understand the cultural context of both creators. Both freely reference their personal ethnic traditions but show the listener/viewer it's transcultural and transchronological implications. Both Jesus and Yinka were sharing timeless and global stories. Understanding the context of their nice clothes and big meal stories will also shed light on the meaning of all of their work.


How to Blow up Two Heads at Once (Ladies), Yinka Shonibare, MBE

The Artist

Yinka Shonibare is like many of the other successful artists of the YBA (Young British Artists) generation. He was born in London and received his MFA from Goldsmiths, University of London and has met astounding success being exhibited in the Venice Biennial, Smithsonian Institution, and being considered for a Turner Prize. Yet while a student one of his professors challenged the authenticity of his artwork. He asked Yinka why he wasn't creating "authentic African art." You see, Yinka was born in London but his parents were Nigerian immigrants and he spent portions of his childhood in the United Kingdom and Lagos, Nigeria. In contemporary times it may be understood as offensive for a non-Black professor to tell his Black student that his artwork isn't Black enough. Yinka's identity was not the one dimensional flat character that onlookers assumed it to be. He was Black but he was also Black British and the conception of identity worldwide was changing from something static to something dynamic. But this was the 80's and a young Yinka Shonibare humored his instructor. He went around town looking for "African" things to incorporate into his artwork. By 1994 he settled on the colorful Batik print clothing that is popular in Western Africa. By this point the colorful Batik prints were recognized worldwide by Black Africans, Black African immigrants in the West, Blacks from the African Diaspora and non-Black/non-Africans alike as the "African" look. Yet the history of Batik print was a little more intricate than the monolithic cultural notion that surrounds it. Batik is worn by Africans but it is not African itself. It is an Indonesian wax resist dye method that allows multiple colors to be printed on fabric. yet it was the Dutch who adopted this method and created the mass produced market in West Africa. Their factories in the Netherlands and Manchester, England churned out this print on American cotton (picked by Black American slaves from the African Diaspora) to clothe buyers in Nigeria. In this ornate global market Europe was creating the symbol of African identity. Yinka started creating scenes of Victorian opulence where the costumes (designed in the height of European historical fashion) are all created from Batik print cloth. These works comedically critiqued European and African notions of cultural, racial and national homogeneity. It also discussed colonialism, post-colonialism and the centuries old phenomenon of globalization. All of these cultural, historic and contemporary considerations are tied into the context of Yinka's nice clothes and big meal.


Three Graces, Yinka Shonibare, MBE

The Setting

Jesus' parable of the Wedding Banquet (known as a few other names) in Matthew 22:1-14 is similar to many of Jesus' other parables. The story is a sermon through narrative and symbols. The symbols refer to parties in Jesus' immediate first century context, yet they have lasting implications for following Christ in a contemporary setting. However mare than any other parable, Matthew 22:1-14 may have the most cultural considerations that need explanation to the reader. The details of wedding rituals in Jesus' day are key to understanding the symbols of Jesus' parable. First of all the marriage process had two parts, it is still the same today in traditional Jewish weddings. Wikipedia explains it this way:

"Technically, the Jewish wedding process has two distinct stages: kiddushin (sanctification or dedication, also called erusin, betrothal in Hebrew) and nissuin (marriage), when the couple start their life together. The first stage prohibits the woman to all other men, requiring a religious divorce (get) to dissolve, and the final stage permits the couple to each other. The ceremony that accomplishes nisuin is known as chuppah.
Today, erusin/kiddushin occurs when the groom gives the bride a ring or other object of value with the intent of creating a marriage. There are differing opinions as to which part of the ceremony constitutes nissuin/chuppah; they include standing under the canopy - itself called a chuppah - and being alone together in a room (yichud). While historically these two events could take place as much as a year apart, they are now commonly combined into one ceremony.^"

The last line is critical for our understanding of Jesus' parable: "historically these two events could take place as much as a year apart." So the community would become aware of the marriage long before what we understand as a "wedding ceremony" would take place. So like the parable, the guests would receive an invite long before the wedding and then be alerted again when the wedding was about to occur. Here's the kicker: nobody knew when the wedding would occur before hand and when they did, it would be immediate. Remember Jesus' parable of the Ten Virgins? It is based on the idea that they do not know when the bridegroom will arrive. He could show up at any time and they would have to be ready for the wedding to occur at any moment. This was the common practice. Not only were brides expected to be ready for a wedding at a moment's notice, so were the invited guests. So in Matthew 22:1-14, when the servants go out to announce the wedding the second time, it isn't an announcement of a wedding later on that year, later on that week or later on that day. The announcement was for a wedding that was happening now. The expectation was for the guests to drop everything and come now! So what was the guest to do who was in the middle of doing farm work or sleeping and had no formal attire on? Weddings in Jesus' time not only provided special clothing for the bride and the groom but also for each guest. It is like a fancy restaurant that requires that all male diners wear a jacket. For those who don't have a jacket, the restaurant provides one. The immediate cost of the banquet and clothing comes at great expense to the family that throws the wedding, therefore it is understandable that they would expect all invited parties to attend. Jesus' parable illustrating the kingdom of heaven as a wedding banquet then comes with the underlying themes of costliness, family and duty that all of his original listeners would understand. That is also the theme that belies the message to the present day reader. All of these cultural, historic and contemporary considerations are tied into the context of Jesus' nice clothes and big meal.



Big Boy, Yinka Shonibare MBE

The Story

The context of culture is key to gleaning meaning. So now that we understand the significance of fancy attire and elaborate feasts in the Anglo-Nigerian and Palestinian Jewish context, let's consider the meaning of them symbolically in Jesus' parable. It may not surprise you that the wedding of the King's Son is a reference to the marriage of Christ (the Son of God) to his people, the Church (known as the Bride of Christ). Throughout Scripture there have always been references to the relationship between Divinity and the Elect. God and Israel are often referred to as a married couple... often in a bad marriage. Yet the consummation of God's union with His people comes through His Son's self sacrificial ransom of them. And the People that the Son saves and takes as his bride is not only Israel, but the Elect among all the world. So when we see the servants announcing the Son's marriage in the beginning of the parable, it is an announcement of a kiddushin . It is the Prophets declaring that God's people have been betrothed or promised to Him. He has taken Israel to be His people and they take Him to be their God. This kiddushin is a sanctifying act. It testifies that there is yet a future date when God will ceremonially bind himself to the fullness of His people by revealing His fullness in the Messiah. So when the servants announce the wedding the second time, it is John the Baptist preaching that the wedding banquet/kingdom of God is at hand/now. Collectively these servants were rejected and killed. Those who murdered the prophets are punished by the destruction of their city (a less than veiled reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and all other previous destruction and diaspora by foreign invaders). Then the King asks the servants (the Apostles) to invite any and everybody to the wedding banquet. This is a reference to the admittance of Gentiles into God's people but also the poor, the sinful, the marginalized and anyone else whom the now judged religious leadership had failed to present the message of Mercy too. It is the open call of Grace. Yet the open call of Grace also comes with a covering of Grace. This is the wedding garment that the one wedding guest has neglected to wear. St. Augustine was the first expositor to point out that these garments were provided by the wedding party free of charge by the banquet host. He also saw the wedding clothes as symbolic of charity (works of unconditional love). Martin Luther agreed that the wedding garments had been provided for the guest but thought that the garment represented Christ himself (as our spiritual covering). John Calvin also had ideas about what the provision of the wedding clothes symbolized. In true Reformation fashion he focused it around the notion of faith and works:

"As to the wedding garment, is it faith, or is it a holy life? This is a useless controversy; for faith cannot be separated from good works, nor do good works proceed from any other source than from faith."

 I like to think that it is symbolic of the provision of holiness. Since Hebrews 12:14 says:

"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord"

But then upon looking at the verse again, maybe it is holiness and peace with all men. Whether this covering is charity, faith, works, peace, holiness or Christ himself, I think that we can make the same conclusion. God has freely provided that which he requires. Ultimately the wedding garment is Grace, a free and unmerited gift. Those who have been invited to the banquet that is the kingdom of God have been given the Grace of charity, faith, works, peace, holiness and Christ himself to be covered in. All of the context of Grace is tied into God's nice clothes and big meal.



Scramble for Africa, Yinka Shonibare MBE

“For many are called, but few are chosen.”

The Royal invite

Politically Yinka Shonibare sees himself as a Republican. That is not to be confused with the American concept of a Republican as opposed to a Democrat in the United Sate's two party system. In the British context, a Republican is opposed to the Monarchy. A British Republican is an advocate of a Republic without the trappings (even ceremonial) of being governed by a Monarch. Yet Yinka Shonibare himself is part of the overall trappings of the British Monarchy. You may have noticed that on each image I have typed his name as "Yinka Shonibare MBE." The "MBE" stands for "Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire". It is "the most junior and most populous order of chivalry in the British and other Commonwealth honours systems. It was established on 4 June 1917 by King George V," In 2004 Yinka was given this honor from the Queen for his service to the United Kingdom. The irony of receiving an honor from the empire was not lost on this Republican artist who critiques the evils of colonialism. yet in an interview Yinka shared that he was wooed by the grandeur of the monarchy whilst in the palace to receive honors from the monarch. Receiving a gift from a Monarch is hard to refuse. The conclusion of Jesus' parable ends with a notation about receiving a royal invite and gift: "For many are called, but few are chosen.” The parable of Matthew 22:1-14 centers around obedience to the King. The invite to the wedding is a command to attend. But solely focusing on this aspect will lead to the subtle overall truth behind the royal invite: it symbolizes friendship with the King. The guests have been given a gift by the Monarch. It is a very costly gift (for the King) that comes with a duty (for the guest). Yet all relationships (especially a friendship) come with those terms of gift and duty. Receiving a gift from a Monarch is hard to refuse, yet some do. That is the message of Jesus' story: Grace is free, Grace should be accepted, Grace is of ten rejected, Grace demands changes and Grace provides for that change. Many have been called t Grace, few responded, Some of those who verbally responded did not respond in their heart with change and therefore will not be chosen. The unstated ending of this parable is an invite. You have been called to dine with the King. What are you going to wear?



Dressing Down, Yinka Shonibare MBE

Vintage Vintage

Watchtower In Vineyard, The American Colony In Jerusalem

Matthew 21:33-43

There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower.

Sometimes hardships can lead to creative beauty. Sometimes loss can lead the grieving party to make provisions for others. Many of you may be familiar with the hymn "It Is Well with My Soul" but not the story behind it. Wikipedia shares this about it's writer Horatio Spafford:

This hymn was written after traumatic events in Spafford’s life. The first was the death of their only son from Scarlet Fever in 1870. Second was the 1871 Great Chicago Fire which ruined him financially (he had been a successful lawyer and had invested significantly in property in the area of Chicago which was decimated by the great fire). His business interests were further hit by the economic downturn of 1873 at which time he had planned to travel to Europe with his family on the SS Ville du Havre. In a late change of plan, he sent the family ahead while he was delayed on business concerning zoning problems following the Great Chicago Fire. While crossing the Atlantic, the ship sank rapidly after a collision with a sea vessel, the Loch Earn, and all four of Spafford's daughters died. His wife Anna survived and sent him the now famous telegram, "Saved alone …". Shortly afterwards, as Spafford traveled to meet his grieving wife, he was inspired to write these words as his ship passed near where his daughters had died

Many of you who attend a church of predominately eighty-year-olds may have already been familiar with the story of the hymn. But have you heard about the rest of Horatio Spafford and his wife Anna Spafford's lives? Well, that's what Wikipedia is for:

The Spaffords later had three more children. In 1881, the Spaffords, including baby Bertha and newborn Grace, set sail for Israel. The Spaffords moved to Jerusalem and helped found a group called the American Colony; its mission was to serve the poor. The colony later became the subject of the Nobel prize winning Jerusalem, by Swedish novelist Selma Lagerlöf.

So that is where this post begins. At a new beginning in Old Jerusalem. The Spaffords and there American comrades were eventually joined by several Swedish community members. Though this community was a Christian one they were held in high regard by there Muslim and Jewish neighbors for their service to the community and selfless giving. They also gave timeless treasures to the world's archeological community by photographing many of the ruins of Palestine and the daily life of local people. The American Colony in Jerusalem (as it came to be known) became the home of several photographers and primarily supported itself through the selling of their images. This was the impetus behind photographer and community member G. Eric Matson's documentation of vineyard farming in Palestine. A better description of these images would be "vintage." By vintage, I mean it's contemporary usage as a world meaning both old and quality... something worth preserving. Yet I also mean the original meaning of vintage, denoting the farming of the vineyard and things connected to winemaking. These images are vintage vintage. Jesus' parable in  Matthew 21:33-43 is also vintage vintage. He is both sharing a parable about the workings of a vineyard and also participating in a centuries old discussion involving prophecy, psalm and parable... all centered around the image of the vineyard. Jesus even adopts the imagery and format of the earlier arguments to empower the point that he is making. To understand the full implications of Jesus' vintage vintage image we must delve into the earlier images that he was working from.



Ein Karem, Ancient Winepress, Natives with Middle Bronze Jars, The American Colony In Jerusalem

The Prophecy: The Problematic Produce

Isaiah 5:1-7 
Now let me sing to my Well-beloved
A song of my Beloved regarding His vineyard:
My Well-beloved has a vineyard
On a very fruitful hill.
He dug it up and cleared out its stones,
And planted it with the choicest vine.
He built a tower in its midst,
And also made a winepress in it;
So He expected it to bring forth good grapes,
But it brought forth wild grapes.

“And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah,
Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard.
What more could have been done to My vineyard
That I have not done in it?
Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes,
Did it bring forth wild grapes?
And now, please let Me tell you what I will do to My vineyard:
I will take away its hedge, and it shall be burned;
And break down its wall, and it shall be trampled down.
I will lay it waste;
It shall not be pruned or dug,
But there shall come up briers and thorns.
I will also command the clouds
That they rain no rain on it.”

For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel,
And the men of Judah are His pleasant plant.
He looked for justice, but behold, oppression;
For righteousness, but behold, a cry for help.
 

A prophet represents God and brings His words to the people. As God's representative a prophet acts as both God's confidant and emissary. In the context of this relationship the Old Testament Prophet Isaiah describes God in this prophecy/poem/song/parable in terms of friendship: his "well beloved." His friend God has a problem with produce. Isaiah shares that the vineyard that He has planted is not bearing fruit. This is a problem because vineyards are not planted for their beauty but rather for their grapes. Grapes create wine and wine creates joy. These vineyards are not fulfilling their purpose. So through the words of Isaiah the Creator speaks to Creation. By the end of the poem Isaiah reveals that the vineyard is Israel. The thrust of his argument is an appeal to return. This message is important in itself, however, the literary structure that gives us the message is important as well. The following is my untutored outline of this scriptures' structure.

I. Presentation of a problem
     A. Disappointment

II. Background
     A. Possession/ownership
     B. Location
     C. Preparation/care
     D. Features

III. Response to the Problem
     A. Destruction as a form of judgement

IV. Identification
     A. Identity of Vineyard
     B. Reason for Disappointment
     C. Identity of Destroyer

V. Challenge
     A. Reason

VI. Conclusion
     A. God makes the "What was I to do?" argument

I highlight this structure because it is going to be repeated and tweaked by others who are involved in this ongoing vineyard debate.

Vineyard & Watch Tower. Ain Yabrud, The American Colony in Jerusalem

The Psalm: Protest of the Proprietor

Psalm 80:8-19

You have brought a vine out of Egypt;
You have cast out the nations, and planted it.
You prepared room for it,
And caused it to take deep root,
And it filled the land.
The hills were covered with its shadow,
And the mighty cedars with its boughs.
She sent out her boughs to the Sea,[a]
And her branches to the River.[b]

Why have You broken down her hedges,
So that all who pass by the way pluck her fruit?
The boar out of the woods uproots it,
And the wild beast of the field devours it.

Return, we beseech You, O God of hosts;
Look down from heaven and see,
And visit this vine
And the vineyard which Your right hand has planted,
And the branch that You made strong for Yourself.
It is burned with fire, it is cut down;
They perish at the rebuke of Your countenance.
Let Your hand be upon the man of Your right hand,
Upon the son of man whom You made strong for Yourself.
Then we will not turn back from You;
Revive us, and we will call upon Your name.

Restore us, O Lord God of hosts;
Cause Your face to shine,
And we shall be saved!
 

A psalm is a community worship song, however, they are not always happy. They display the complex prayer life of the ancient Israelites. Some can be laments and Psalm 80 in particular centers around asking God why He has seemingly abandoned His people. While I believe that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" I also observe that God is not speaking in every verse. Sometimes it is the writer and or characters in the text. When the text is quoting characters that contradict God's words, like Job's friends, it is obvious that these are not God's words or opinions. So All Scripture is given to us by God as a presentation of His whole argument (including His responses to contradictory opinions). I say all this to bring us back to Psalm 80. It is written from the perspective of the vineyard. This is not God's words but rather God's people's words to God. Specifically I see it as a response in the ongoing vineyard debate. In Psalm 80 God's vineyard protests its Proprietor. The vineyard (the people of Israel) ask if the Lord an absentee landlord? Creation cries out to the Creator and asks why He has allowed his vineyard to be overrun and abandoned. Why has God forsaken His people Israel? Notice how the structure parallels (and diverges from) the structure of Isaiah 5.

I. Presentation of a problem
     A. Destruction

II. Background
     A. Possession/ownership
     B. Location
     C. Preparation/care
     D. Features

III. Response to the Problem
     A. Disappointment as a form of judgment
    
IV. Identification
     A. Reason for Disappointment
     B. Identity of Destroyer

V. Challenge
     A. Return, Revive, Restore

VI. Conclusion
     A. The People make the "What will you do? argument

The aim of the Psalmist's lament is an appeal for God to return back to Israel. The two different perspectives in this debate call for a mediator. This is where Christ enters the story. 


Gathering Grapes in Vineyard, The American Colony in Jerusalem

The Parable: Possession of the Property

Matthew 21:33-43
“Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.
“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”
They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”
Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

When Jesus shared his parable in Matthew 21:33-43 he was also adding his voice into the ongoing d vineyard debate. As the Messiah he stood in between God and Mankind. His act of redemption was an act of mediation. When Christ tells his version of the vineyard story, he doesn't tell it from the perspective of the vineyard or the owner...even though he appears as one of the characters. In mediating between two parties it is always important to clarify what the discussion is all about. Jesus does this by retelling the vineyard story with a new perspective. The outline of this structure answers both Isaiah 5 and Psalm 80. But I feel by this point you can point out the similarities in structure without me posting them. You can probably tell the problem, background, response to the problem and identification similarities with the previous stories. I would like to tell you the difference between Jesus' story and the others and how it clarifies the story that God is telling. The difference is the source of the problems. The source of the problems with the vineyard is the labor. The tenants who have been called to work the vineyard have not only ruined the crop (according to Isaiah) but according to Jesus they have also held it hostage! Think about it, wild grapes (like in Isaiah) occur when they are not weeded out. Wild grapes occur naturally and their presence show a lack of gardening by the tenant farmers. The wild grapes a destructive because like any weed they take the place of the useful crop. Jesus is clarifying God's earlier position in Isaiah. God is not angry at the vineyard (all of Israel), rather He is angry at the irresponsible and rebellious tenant farmers. The tenant farmers are analogous to the temple priests and the elders of the people. God is punishing the religious leadership of Israel. They have not shepherded the people into works of righteousness and acts of love. They have held the people captive and prevented any other holy leadership occurring. Therefore when God places judgment on them it causes a power vacuum and the people suffer. In this way the judgment of a few falls on the many. Jesus also shares that the landowner (God) sent his servants with his message whom they beat, killed and stoned. These were the prophets, like Isaiah (who tradition says was martyred by King Manasseh), who as God's spokesman were both outside of the official religious leadership and rejected by them. The son of the landowner who brings the message of his father is analogous to Jesus, the Son of God the Father who not only brings the message of God but is the Word of God. Their rejection of God would be accepted by God and in return he would reject them. This subtheme of rejection leads Jesus to start a smaller sub-parable to enforce his conclusion. Jesus not only prophesies his own rejection and crucifixion but also shares their significance and impact. He says that his rejection (as a stone) from the religious authorities (the builders) would lead to his being the building block (chief cornerstone)of something new that God was now building. This new structure that would measure itself by the standard of Christ. So what is this new thing that God is doing?   

Arab Man Pruning Vines, The American Colony In Jerusalem

The Paradigm of Paradise and the Paradox of Providence

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Sometimes hardships can lead to creative beauty. Sometimes loss can lead the grieving party to make provisions for others. Horatio Spafford's loss lead to his penning of hymn that has reminded countless believers of God's comfort in troubled times. It also lead to the founding of the American Colony in Jerusalem that showed the unconditional love of Christ in action to many nonbelievers. The American Colony in Jerusalem fostered the development of photographers like G. Eric Matson who provided images that illustrated the imagination of those worldwide who would hear the stories of Scripture. A Scripture that begins with the story of a garden and two gardeners. Whether you believe in the literalness of the Adam & Eve story or not, you have to recognize that it is accurate in it's being set in a garden. A garden is the picture of God and Man's cooperation. God creates the plants and Man creates ways for them to be organized and thrive. Man prunes and develops the beauty that God has graced him to oversee. So the Fall is the story of Mankind's refusal to cooperate with God. When Mankind ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (another phrase for "judgment"), he judged the prudence of God long before God exercised judgment upon Mankind. In exercising this condemnation of God Mankind proved himself unworthy of eternal life (symbolized by the Tree of Life). Before God banished Mankind from His garden, Mankind had banished God from his heart. Mankind terminated the contract of cooperation. Mankind refused to love God as a father. So the Apostle Paul tells us that with the loss of Adam, God enacted His plan for the new Adam: Jesus Christ.  

Romans 5:15-19

"But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.  For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

Sometimes hardships can lead to creative beauty. Sometimes loss can lead the grieving party to make provisions for others. That's what God is all about... creating new beautiful things. When God lost Adam he planned to bring about a new Adam. This didn't mean that he had rejected all of Mankind or Creation, but rather He would redeem mankind and all of Creation through Christ. When God lost the prophets who were martyred he planned to bring about His final spokesman and substitutionary martyr. This didn't mean that he had rejected all of the idea of religious leadership, but rather He would redeem religious authority through the headship of Christ. Likewise Jesus tells us when God lost the nation of Israel, His vineyard, he planned to bring about a new nation bearing fruit. This didn't mean that he had rejected all of the Jews (as many have accused replacement theology of stating), but rather He would create a nation of the redeemed Mankind in the Body of Christ. Jesus' parable is the story of Adam & Eve's Fall in reverse. Instead of God throwing Man out of the Garden, Man has thrown God out of the Garden. The rest of Salvation has been about God trying to reenter the Garden through His Word. Jesus' story of the vineyard is the most vintage of the vintage stories. The garden of grapes that has been mismanaged for ages is the garden of paradise that God is calling us back to. The work of the garden is cooperation between God and Mankind. It is a peace between the vineyard laborers and the Landowner that God the Son died to achieve. More than anyone God knows loss. Like Horatio Spafford, He is a bereaved Father... yet this loss will create beauty and provision for others. The death of God's Son has created a new community... a new nation.