In Daniel 2:24-45, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar had a dream about a statue crushed by a “rock.” This king ruled an empire which overpowered the Assyrian kingdom while stretching to the gate of the mighty Egyptians. In his quest for power he laid siege to countries in between Babylon and Egypt taking some captive, including the city of Jerusalem and its surrounding villages. The Hebrew narratives and prophets indicated that this was done by the will of Yahweh as a punishment for Judah’s breaking faith with their God (2 Chron. 36:15-21). However, God continued to show the Jewish nation that their Lord was still in charge, even as captives in a foreign land.

Nebuchadnezzar was troubled by his night vision. He asked his wise leaders to interpret and when they claimed to be unable, he “put a hit out on all of them.” One of the Judean captives, Daniel, volunteered to interpret the dream for his king. After Yahweh revealed the answer, he shared with the king that his dream involved a statue with five parts. A rock was “cut” (possibly from a quarry—and possible another statue/idol) which crushed the statue causing the particles to be scattered by the wind.

Numerous interpretations of Daniel’s description have been given by Biblical scholars, clergy, and religious authors. Interpretations may focus upon the identity of the future kings or Empires as well as the temporal establishment of Babylonian, Persian, Median, Greek, Asian, Roman, and other empires. Some interpretations seek to determine the establishment of the “final” kingdom, known as the Kingdom of God, church, and/or final reign of Christ.
While many pages have been dedicated to discussing these interpretations and their application to academics and ministry, I find that a deeper issue—the permanence of the reign of God, is at the heart of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its interpretation. It may be that the divine message to this king is more regal than chronological. Was the lesson to this Babylonian king concerned with “who would succeed him, and that God would reign hundreds of years later”? Or was the lesson that “no matter who ruled the world, God ruled all?”
​
First, the book of Daniel occupies two different locations in our Canons of scripture. The Hebrew version, known as MT, and Greek version, known as the Septuagint or LXX, places Daniel in different locations. LXX translators put Daniel immediately following the Major Prophet Ezekiel, and at the beginning of the twelve “Minor Prophets.” In this canon Daniel occupies a place within the prophets, which may suggest many of the “prophetic” and “apocalyptic” interpretations of the book. This is the same location as our modern translations.
Second, in the MT Daniel was placed within the Hagiographa (known as the Writings or Praise), rather than the Nabim (Prophets). In this location Daniel occupied a place in the praise and wisdom corpus of the Hebrew Bible. Daniel, along with Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and others represents the stories of courage, faithfulness, and the Fear of the Lord in the courts of the Gentile kings of the world. Daniel shares themes similar to Proverbs through the Fear of the Lord, youth (Na’ar), wisdom, and instruction for kings passages. This also suggests that Daniel’s ability to interpret dreams and serve in the Babylonian court had less of a Messianic emphasis than wisdom.

It is this location, the Hagiographa, which offers us a unique view of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, involves life under the reign of God rather than a future prediction and fulfillment through prophecy.

Interpreting the Vision

Nebuchadnezzar’s vision was interpreted by Daniel because he feared Yahweh, which was considered the beginning of wisdom (Prov. 1:7). The king’s advisors and leaders could not tell him the dream, nor could they interpret it. Daniel, who had proven to be obedient to Yahweh and this Babylonian ruler, through prayer, claimed to receive a divine message from God which included both dream and interpretation. The setting of this dream suggests that this world regent not only needed a lesson in humility, but one that reminded him Yahweh, rather than Marduk, ruled Babylon as well as the rest of the world.

First, the dream included various empires representing parts of the statue such as a head of gold, arms and chest of silver, bronze pants/waist, legs, and feet of iron and clay (Dan. 2:34). Nebuchadnezzar was identified as the head of gold (2:38), while the other parts represented future kings or kingdoms (the Hebrew word mlk can mean either). Often, these components comprise the bulk of scholarly commentary concerning their attempts to “prove” or “validate” history alongside Daniel’s interpretation of the dream. Pages have been written discussing various rulers in the Babylonian, Median, Persian, Greek, Judean, and/or Roman Empires. Other more modern writers have suggested that Daniel’s interpretation has a modern fulfillment connecting the book to Revelation and the Beast/Antichrist. However, these discussions became unimportant for the existing king of Babylon or those reading the text centuries later.
Second, the dream suggested that an “unshakeable” kingdom not only crushed the other rulers but is also eternal (Dan. 2:44-45). Interpreters agree that this is the kingdom of God, however, many disagree as to the “timing” of this “establishment.” “In the days of those kings” has been discussed as occurring at the end of the four or five reigning kings. The establishment of this “future empire” becomes dependent upon the interpretation of the kings. This basis for interpretation has contributed to numerous prophetic predictions concerning the “establishment of God’s reign,” or “Jesus’ kingdom/church.” Was the dream meant to apply only to Nebuchadnezzar, during the reign of Cyrus, persecution of Antiochus, Roman persecution, or even the kingdom “yet to come?”

I offer that the dream has a continual application to those in Daniel’s day and all readers in the future. The phrase “in those days of the kings” suggests that the kingdom of God exists during the reign of any king. This interpretation is not dependent on who rules or when the kingdom of God arrives, but the present reality of Yahweh’s kingdom. For Nebuchadnezzar, the dream suggested that God will always be in charge. For the Judean people the reminder was that no matter who was on the throne, past, present, or future, Yahweh reigns. This application offered hope to those under the Babylonian exilic crisis as well as those serving under the Persian, Greek, Syrian, or even Roman empires. One can even extend this theology of a present kingdom during the dark and chaotic days of history for those facing religious persecution or those feeling that God is silent. Daniel’s actions indicated that even though Yahweh had turned a deaf ear to their cries as the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem (Jer. 11:11, 14), faithfulness and devotion would rouse God to remember the covenant (Dan. 1:9, 17-20).

"You know when we are lost, and even while we are running away, God can still speak to us."

Whatever you've done, whatever choices you've made, God is always ready to welcome you. Bruce Bates, Director of Coaching at Kairos, shares his testimony of learning this the hard way. And he wants you to know God is there for you, too.

Updated: Bruce spoke on Vulnerability in his sermon at The Feast Church on June 6, 2021. Below is a video of that sermon, which includes the pre-recorded testimony above. May you be blessed by the freedom that comes as you share life and Christ with others.

Martin Luther King Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, famously made this biting critique of the church: "So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound.” Unfortunately, this is oftentimes true in our own time as well. Many of us are left with the suffocating feeling that the church seems to stand for little that Jesus stood for and that our world is suffering because of it. What should be salt and light has become dim and tasteless.
 
This year’s theme for the Kairos Blog is “Renewal.” Renewal is certainly something we long for and need. Renewal comes from the Lord lifting up leaders among his people to call for a new course. These people are His prophets. In the abstract, the work of the prophet is a good and necessary thing in the life of the people of God. The prophets call us back to the standard of God. In fact, far from being cynical complainers, prophets call the people of God into a brighter future--a future characterized by love, peace, and justice--the future “beloved community” as King labeled it.

Tickle uses the following metaphor to further desribe distinctions within Christiantity.

Imagine that you’ve recently inherited an old farm house that has been in your family for  generations. You have a strong connection to this homestead, even if the years of wear and  tear show its missing luster. Now it belongs to your generation. It is up to you to decide what to do with the house. And let’s assume that you have already resolved it would be a shame to  just sell the property to a stranger who doesn’t know the meaning held within.  

How would you approach this home?  

Some may be fine to dust off the cobwebs and shake out the rugs. They won’t find any need to  get new furniture or change much of anything. Their grandparents’ old couch and bed will  suffice after a little cleaning and repair. For them, it will bring great joy to know that they are  living just the way that their family always has. It will be sweet to hear the floorboards creak like they would have under Grandpa’s footsteps. They will rest easy in Grandma’s chair out on the porch.  Sure, they’ll have to learn how to use the old wood burning stove to heat the house, but they  will feel a great honor in doing so every time. 
​
Others will say that the furniture is beyond repair . . . and so are some parts of the house. They  believe there is something about this century old home that could shine again with a little effort.  They will set out to restore it, refurbishing the floors (fixing the creaks), repairing missing  baseboards and hardware. They will even update the wiring and the HVAC to bring in some  modern comforts. However, the goal is not to notice major changes. They want to work hard to  make the old feel like new again. 

Then there are those who will say moving a wall or two, adding a much needed second  bathroom, or modernizing the kitchen will not change the connection one has with the original  place. In fact, they might even argue the changes are the only thing making the house livable in  this modern age. They suppose, “Grandma and Grandpa would have done the same if they 
were still alive.” This family concludes that it would be silly not to swap out drafty windows and  install modern appliances. In no way does even the most drastic updates jeopardize any  connection they hold with the past.  

Finally, there will be others that maintain great fondness with the homestead even when the  original house is gone completely. They may argue that the view from the house or the land it  sat on is the real heritage worth building upon. Now, in the process of tearing down the old  house and building a modern place to live, these thoughtful folks may designate mementos  from the old to feature in the new. They may save a section of the flooring where Grandma used to stand in the kitchen to hang prominently on the wall. Maybe they’ll keep that old bench that used to live by the back door where Grandpa would sit and take off his muddy work boots every evening. For them, the memories will live on and the connection to the past will remain long after the physical features are replaced.  

Or option five.  

I really don’t think there is a wrong answer here. I might argue that we need all of these  systems to address the homestead, or the church, of the future. Any of these approaches,  done with authenticity and intentionality, can be an option worth the effort. And yet, can we  also appreciate and honor the journey of others who arrive at different decisions from us?  
​
Our opportunity here is to foster a positive landscape, fertile for producing unique takes and  fresh approaches while avoiding drawing boundary lines of distinction and alienating the brave.  
​
Remember: even if we’re in a different current, we’re all swimming in the same water.

Maybe you are not familiar with the term “futuring.” No worries, neither is my spell check. Researcher Stephen Millett writes, “Futuring is a systematic process of thinking about the future in order to frame reasonable expectations, to identify emerging opportunities and threats to the company or organization, and to anticipate actions that will promote desired outcomes.”
​
Futuring is an aspect of strategic planning that identifies market conditions and trends to help businesses consider what customers may be attracted to in the future. Some might confuse this with creating a vision. In fact, visioning is the opposite of futuring. Futuring is like a pair of binoculars we use to assess what is on the horizon. Visioning is donning a pair of bifocals to see what is within you in order to develop an intentional response to the perceived future. Both are necessary for a well-rounded, strategic approach to business…and Christianity for that matter.

These disciplines have become essential in my work as a church planter. I try very hard to consider the needs of the community as well as continually observe what is happening all around Christendom. I am committed to not to start a church without first addressing what kind of church—and even if a ‘church’—is needed. 

I hope that by pulling back the curtain on the work of church planting, I might inspire existing churches and leaders that are also on the cusp of addressing current cultural shifts and hoping to connect with a lost audience in their area. I plan to share my thoughts in three parts, since we have quite a lot to consider.

Where We Are

First, let’s start with where we are now. It should come as no surprise to you that the Church is dying. According to the Barna Group, there are now half as many “Practicing Christians” as there were ten years ago.

Yes, you read that right.

Half. 

​Fifty percent of those surveyed in 2009 “identified as Christian, agreed strongly that faith is very important in their lives and attended church within the past month.” By 2019, this number was twenty-five percent. Wow. That sentence deserves a long pause to fully take it in. (Let me point out that these statistics DO NOT reflect fallout from the coronavirus crisis. That number very well may be even lower now.) 

It doesn’t take an analyst to conclude that what we have been doing in churches seems to be connecting less and less with our audience. Something drastic may be in order.

There is hope. People do seem interested in tangible, fresh approaches that connect with their innate desires. Authors Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch (The Shaping of Things to Come) have found that “the advent of postmodernism has raised within the West many expectations for an experiential, activist form of religious, mystical experience.” I’ve seen this to be true. People are hungry and looking for authentic, meaningful connection to one another and the divine. They long for something to inspire them, something to move them beyond their current scenarios and perspectives. They are looking for this, but often they haven’t found it in the Church. Why is that? 

Here are a few pointed questions:

• Do our meetings inspire people with some perennial tradition that feels bigger than any one of us and evokes the awe and beauty of 2000 years of Christianity?
• Have we been too attached to ceremony that we have forgotten the reasons we gather?
• How has our emphasis on “church” (and, by this, I mean the Sunday morning meeting) confused people to think that attendance replaces discipleship?
• Do we emphasize a Christ-like lifestyle that goes well beyond participating in a worship service?
• Do our churches encourage individual development and embrace people's harebrained, missional responses to the gospel? Or… Do we opt for the rote and familiar, the comfortable and predictable, the orderly and presentable? 

When I read the New Testament and think about the start of the Early Church, I see something inspiring (read “full of Spirit”), messy, fast-moving, adaptable, tangible, simple, yet beautiful and intricate. I cannot help but find so many connections to the longings of modern-day people inherent in the possible application of this idea from the text. And yet somehow we miss this. Somehow we confuse the process or put the cart before the horse. Somehow our traditions and exceptions get in the way of connecting with future generations. 

I want to be the kind of leader who is willing to work through these complicated questions, to keep an eye on the horizon and try to develop tangible solutions to answer that call. I hope others are doing the same in their own ways and in their own areas. This work requires that leaders are brave. And it always helps to know that we are among good company.

In Genesis 1-2, Yahweh created the earth as new. After the flood God has continued to renew his relationship/covenant with people. In the prophets, God promised to return Judah and Israel from captivity to repair and rebuild Jerusalem and the temple. This was described as a “renewed heavens and earth,” “renewed or repaired covenant/relationship,” “renewed Spirit,” “renewed life and resurrection,” and “repaired city of Zion,” (Is. 65:17-25; Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek.37:1-14; Zech. 12). As Isaiah 40 shifts from judgment to restoration, Yahweh describes the process of renewing the people in exile as childbirth, healing from sin, forming a new city, and restoring nature (Isaiah 40-42).

Renewal and repair have always been the work of God, especially for those seeking forgiveness, healing, and transformation.

Unfortunately, the Greek word for new (kainos) failed to capture the diverse meanings of ChDSh. We have typically understood many passages in the New Testament gospels and letters to refer to “new” as “brand new” or “newly created.” In the book of Hebrews the writer tells the audience to listen and trust Jesus, who is the author of a “renewed covenant” (Heb. 3:7-11). Rather than interpreting this with New Testament context, we can understand the letter to state that the old covenant was broken when the people disobeyed God; yet Jesus offered a chance for forgiveness and renewed the relationship/covenant…by giving his own blood. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus served a meal as a sign of this “renewed relationship through his blood” (Luke 22:20-22). Same relationship, same God, same humans…but repaired by the sacrifice of Jesus. The Apostle Paul encouraged Christians to be “renewed” by repenting of their sin and transforming their lives into the image of Jesus (Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 4:17-5:20; Col. 3:9-10).

Through the resurrection of Jesus, we are “repaired,” “renewed,” and “rebuilt,” to live to the glory of God.

Same person, same relationship, same God…but rebuilt to live a different life.

Those of us who have planted churches understand this concept. We do not plant brand new churches, we learn from the best and rebuild ministries to serve those who live in our contexts. We preach and teach from old texts that repair lives both young and old. We reestablish relationships with people who remember the Jesus of their past, but who have lost touch with their first love and Savior. We guide people to see Jesus and reignite their passion through the Holy Spirit. Church planting restores relationships and lives in the image of the one who created all things new and repairs them when they are broken.
​

This is Why We Plant Churches…

It was a sunny Saturday morning in Portland. We had taken a team from our supporting church in Oklahoma downtown to Pioneer Courthouse Square to make one last connection with people before we launched our new church, Agape Church of Christ. This year Easter was in early April and we were lucky to have a sunny day so early. Lori and I had been meeting in our home for nine months with a small group of five families, preparing to launch a church that would reach people on the margins. I had made many trips downtown to connect with others and listen to what they needed from a church.

We divided into teams to canvas the area, hand out flyers, invite people to our worship service, and have discussions with those who were interested in Jesus. I had my two-year-old son, Caleb, with me who was riding on my shoulders. I was quickly walking along the light rail (MAX) tracks to the center of the square. As with any sunny Portland day, people and their children, homeless youth, and others were gathered throughout the square visiting, eating, or soaking up the sunshine. 

“Spare some change?” a quiet voice said as I passed. I stopped and turned around. I noticed a young woman, wearing black with black fingernails and thick black eyeliner. She was in her early twenties and took the spot where many young people sit while spanging (asking for spare change). I had been walking so fast and was so preoccupied with directing our teams that I almost missed her. ​