Is this a fight worth fighting? Is there a “right” size for local congregations or is one better than the other? In this blog, Dr. Mike Clarensau expounds on the matter.

Churches have come in a variety of sizes from the beginning.

While I’m not sure of the Early Church’s full facilities plan, the Day of Pentecost presented a large church challenge in its first altar call. At the same time, small gatherings of believers seem to crop up all across the Ancient Near East, some the result of the scattering of individual believers and some the result of larger evangelistic opportunities in the town square.

“So if various size churches have always been a part of the kingdom, why the need to prefer one over the other today? Perhaps the answer lies in the different ideas of the Church’s primary task.”

As I travel, I see some churches that believe strongly in the mission to reach lost people, while others seem to focus more on the deeper development of those already in the room. Some see the church as an organization while others prefer the imagery of family. Some are growing numerically, while some who aren’t insist that they are more spiritual.

Now a debate of this magnitude won’t be solved in a single blog (or even a dozen), but here’s a couple of observations that might inform the debate.

Observations

1. It seems that the more focused a church becomes on its true mission, the more they want what the other size has.

A smaller church that begins prioritizing its mission usually begins narrowing its focus, pursuing an outward vision, and reaching for greater excellence (the priorities of the larger church), while the larger church begins seeking greater intimacy in personal relationships and deeper discipleship development (the elements more often in reach of the smaller church).

Our task is both sides of this coin. You see, the Biblical purposes of the Church encompass multiple elements. We are to evangelize the world, we are to guide people in worshipping God, we are to love one another and equip one another for acts of service, and we are to give our resources for the needs of others. The large church usually does a couple of these better than the small church, while the small church often does the others better.

I get nervous when people reject numbers out of hand and I believe others give them too much emphasis. I believe God counts, and I know He writes down every name. He also leaves the 99 to chase after the one and even has your follicles calculated. That doesn’t mean that He judges greatness by numbers. In fact, He told us He judged greatness by servanthood–something I’ve seen both big and small churches do well and others do poorly.

2. Church size often reflects the capacity of people and leaders to manage a multitude.

These folks are effective at generating various types of resources and mobilizing them effectively. It can also reflect harvest timing as the seeds sown by previous generations in both prayer and evangelism can open the way for a larger harvest today. Big churches don’t get big by their programs (a common criticism from the smaller church), they get bigger by their shared passion and abilities to focus that passion effectively. Their programs are more often the tools discovered to preserve and manage their impact.

Smaller churches can have that same passion, but many have misplaced it. Many of these have become focused on themselves and built their church around the comforts of those who worship there. So sadly, they are left to either change or criticize those who do. The latter is a lot easier.

A larger church can face the same struggle. No attendance level will keep a church without vision and outward focus from decline. The same self-focused attitudes will crumble the large church too–it just may take a little longer since the peak was a little higher than in the smaller setting.

Bottom-line: Pursue God’s vision in your church and aim your hearts outward and you’ll have no reason to debate the church size issue.

Remember that the Church is about “Him and them,” and when we focus our thoughts upward and outward, God takes amazing care of us and our needs. Aim upward and outward and God will empower you and help your church become what He’s intended it to be. And the size of that result may be smaller than you figured or bigger than you imagined.

You don’t judge a church by its size. YOU JUDGE IT BY ITS HEART!

TRANSCRIPT

– [MUSIC PLAYING] I think I was about 10 years old the day that my grandfather showed me a piece of history, a secret he kept hidden for decades in a closet. It was a private piece of history from his years of service in the US Army. He had served as a medic, you see, and he would routinely be sent to the front lines of battle, just hours before his arrival. He would look over the troops and see what was happening there. And one day, he found something very interesting. There’s a picture of my grandfather with my boys and my father right there. So he comes to the area where there have been battles just hours before. And he’s tending to the US wounded, and he approached several dead German soldiers. And he noticed at least one of the bodies still had one of these. He picked it up, looked it over. He marveled at the German engineering of this now famous German Luger pistol. It caught his eye. So, being a Price, he just took it and kept it. Tucked it away in his back pocket, into the Jeep, and it made its way all the way back to his hometown of Muncie, Indiana. Well, that day, he showed me this pistol. I was like transported back in time to touch a piece of history that, today, I realize is very sacred to America. You see, my grandfather was a member of what many historians call the greatest generation. These were the young adult men and women of the 1940s, of whom it can be argued that they saved the world. They kept the ideals of freedom and democracy alive for you and I. World War II was the war, friends, that sent men like my grandfather and women like my grandmother to the factories across America, to the front lines overseas, to work the jobs that men left behind. And history informs us that almost every single American wanted to do something to contribute to the war. Men were willing to fight, women willing to work. War bonds were being purchased in mass quantities, and people were more than happy to even ration their own food. But the question I want to answer today is this– in a world way before the dawn of the internet and instant social media, how did all this happen? How did the United States get what seemed like every American citizen on board to contribute to the war effort? I submit to you the answer, as Dr. [? Loeb ?] referred to yesterday and Professor [INAUDIBLE] referred to today, was carefully crafted propaganda, a lot of it. What is propaganda? Well, it’s defined as information of a biased nature used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or a point of view. Now, in the case of World War II, there was propaganda everywhere, with phrases like the buy war bonds, and [INAUDIBLE] of course I can. You saw those. And my favorite– you buy them, we’ll fly them. It was in TV shows, commercials, on the radio. Even Donald Duck was leveraged in the propaganda machine. I mean, what kid back in the 1940s did not love one of Walt Disney’s favorite characters? But the war effort for propaganda was most prevalent through the influence of Hollywood. And many of these influencers were commissioned and paid for by something called the US War Department. A handful of promising young film directors put their careers on hold to join the war effort. These included men like- you need to know these names– Frank Capra, John Huston, George Stevens, William Wyler, John Ford. These men were all featured in the recent Netflix documentary series called Five Came Back. And I really encourage you to watch this three part series if you’re interested in further exploring their contributions to our nation. All of these men paid a very personal price for the war. Some returned to Tinseltown only to find that they had been penalized for being away from the machines of the Hollywood system. Others seemed unable to return to their producing more lighter comedic works. In fact, George Stevens, he was known for his humor before the war. Well, he turned his post-war attention to more somber and sober works like A Place in the Sun and the film called Shane. He once said, I came back and I tried, I tried, to make a comedy. I just couldn’t do it. 1959, Stevens directed The Diary of Anne Frank. You heard Ms. Montgomery mention that film earlier, or that book earlier, where he tried to find a glimmer of hope in a world torn apart by the ravages of war. The narrative films and documentaries these men and others like them produced were laced, friends, with overt propaganda themes. And they were aimed at influencing the American people in their view of the war. These themes were potent weapons that not only motivated the troops to fight and folks at home to pitch in, but it also spread hatred of the Nazis and the Japanese. The mainstream messaging consisted of three powerfully effective themes. One was the nature of the enemy. Number two was the need for men to fight overseas. And three was the need for women to work and sacrifice. So let’s examine them all and see how film shots fired served as the primary propaganda machine of World War II. Number one, the nature of the enemy. This was the most common theme used in many films and poster propaganda during World War II. Stereotypes of Nazis and Japanese were used to spread racism and hatred for the opposition. Characters in a film commonly used offensive language in reference to these adversaries. The goal was to make Americans hate the enemy so much that they would do anything to help the US defeat them. In fact, in popular movies, such as 30 Seconds Over Tokyo and Destination Tokyo and many others, the Japanese enemy overseas are referred to as Japs– you heard that earlier, as well, in our presentations– which quickly evolved into a derogatory term across the entire United States. Millions of Americans began to mimic what they heard in the movies and refer to all Japanese as Japs. And sometimes even as rats and monkeys, whether they were the enemy or simply an innocent Japanese American. Tragically, this led to the mistreatment of thousands of Japanese Americans. Many were held here– you see the picture– in what’s called internment camps for the duration of the war, because of fears that they were spies for the Japanese empire. But the Japanese were not the only enemy targeted in American propaganda films. The Nazis, the German Nazis, received their fair share of film shots fired against them. However, the goal of the propaganda aimed at the Nazis was different than the goal aimed at the Japanese, you see. Instead of spreading racism, blanket racism, against an entire nation, films about Nazis made them appear so brutal and controlling against their own citizens that Americans would feel compassion for the innocent Germans. For example, in the film by Walt Disney titled Education for Death– The Making of the Nazi, nearly every aspect of German civil life was depicted as under strict control by the Nazi party. Genealogical paperwork had to show the child was pure Aryan. Even a baby’s name had to be approved. The film also showed Nazis brainwashing children in schools by instructing them to believe that Germans were a superior race with no tolerance for weaklings or inherited diseases. Perhaps the most crucial propaganda theme, though, was the need for men to fight overseas. Without American men willing to risk their lives in battle, there would be absolutely no way the US and their allies could win the war and defeat the Axis powers. The government had to convince millions of men to leave their families and safety behind to fight in a bloody and dangerous conflict. And yes, there was a national lottery, but let’s face it, it’s a lot easier to win when the troops voluntarily decide to fight for their country. So to aid in this campaign, the US War Department had an idea. They began to tap on the shoulder of the aforementioned Frank Capra, who had already produced two Hollywood hits. You might recognize these films– It Happened One Night and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Under the direction of a name you’ll recognize, chief of staff George C. Marshall, he directed a unique seven-episode series titled Why We Fight, which was aimed at showing American men what they were fighting for and why it was an honor to defend the great nation of America. During their first meeting together, General Marshall told Capra’s mission, quote, “Now, Capra, I want to nail down with you a plan to make a series of documented, factual-information films, the first in our history that will explain to our boys in the Army. Why we’re fighting and the principles for which we’re fighting. You have an opportunity to contribute enormously to your country and the cause of freedom.” Well, after meeting with Marshall, Capra was shown a frightening propaganda film produced by the enemy, the Nazis, titled The Triumph of the Will. This film instantly opened Capra’s eyes to the immense challenge that lay ahead. Capra described the film as, quote, “the ominous prelude of Hitler’s Holocaust of hate.” He said, “Satan could not have devised a more blood-chilling super spectacle.” Capra admitted he was paralyzed to compete against the strong-handed propaganda for the Nazis. He said the film had fired no guns and dropped no bombs, but as a psychological weapon aimed at destroying the will to resist, it was just as lethal. Capra then slipped into what we might call the dark night of the soul. Quote, he said, “I sat alone and I pondered, how could I mount a counterattack against the triumph of the will and keep alive our will to resist this master race concept? I was alone. No studio, no equipment, no personnel.” As he began to calculate his cinematic response, Capra quoted scripture as inspiration. “I thought of the Bible,” he said. “There was one sentence in it that always gave me–” he called them goose pimples. “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” And then an idea was born inside of him. He may have called it a hunch, but I think it may have been more divine inspiration. He suggested to Marshall this. He said, let the enemy prove to our soldiers the enormity of his cause but the justice of ours. Let’s use the enemy’s own films to expose their enslaving ends. He then convinced the general to, quote, “Let’s let our boys hear of the Nazis and the Japs shout their own claims of master race crud, and our fighting men will know why they’re in uniform.” And that, friends, is exactly what Frank Capra did. He secretly began to acquire film reels of Nazi propaganda and began putting them into his own releases. In addition, the Why We Fight films use techniques such as nostalgic analogies to remind people of the challenges America had faced before and how we’d overcome them because of brave men. The films discussed the selling of America at Plymouth Rock, way back to the beginning of our nation, and the building of our colonies. These films idolized how men of valor fought in the American Revolution to defend their sacred freedoms. And that it was now in the hands of their generation, the greatest generation, to do the same for America. Propaganda films were beginning to have a very deep, felt impact on recruitment and morale. Now, think about this. Without Capra’s propaganda and other filmmakers like him, millions of men may not have freely enlisted in the Army, which may have led to a mandatory draft with a much wider net. But maybe more low approval ratings for America’s entanglement in the war, which may have then led to eventual withdrawal and ultimately defeat. But thanks, in part, to film propaganda, that never happened. The third one, though, is the final reel of film propaganda was the need for women to work and sacrifice. This focused the lens on this aspect of Americana. These messages showed how they could help in the war effort by taking those tough-nosed, dirty jobs in factories and manufacturing plants. In one scene from the film 30 Seconds Over Tokyo, the wives of fighter pilots off at war are talking about their lives. And one of them indicates she’s going to get a job in a defense factory because, “I can’t imagine just sitting around in my house doing nothing.” The goal of this film was for life to imitate art and embolden women across America to use their energies on the home front as a direct support system for their men in the military. A film called Women in Defense– it’s a short film produced by the Office of Emergency Management. It was actually written by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, and it was narrated by popular actress Katharine Hepburn. The film script included on-the-nose lines such as, “American women are alert to the dangers which threatened our democracy today. Every woman has an important place in the national defense program, in science, in industry, and in the home.” These films made women feel important and that their physical efforts could make a significant impact in winning the war. Something American women had yet to fully experience, you could say, in the Revolutionary War, in the Civil War, and in World War I. Without American women working in these converted factories and other important plants, the government knew the US would not be able to manufacture supplies and weapons needed in a timely fashion. It was an edge, we could say, that the US military leveraged through messages in these wartime movies. These women were also encouraged by the US War Department to ration food for their families and go without luxuries they once enjoyed. In order for the US to have the best chance of winning, their kitchens would have to sacrifice food like butter and cheese and meat and jams and fruit. And the same rules applied to restaurants. In the film Destination Tokyo, captain of a ship writes a letter to his wife explaining how his son will not be able to get a toy train for Christmas because, quote, “we are in a war.” He continues writing that his son will understand the sacrifice. It’s worth giving up one toy for one Christmas so the US can win the war. He ends the letter with a promise that next Christmas will be different. This film featured, of course, the famous Cary Grant. In short order, women in America became accustomed to rationing and no longer mind doing so, because they knew that it was helping with the war effort. It was a powerful collective mindset planted by propaganda films. So, in summary, whether you agree or you disagree with the use of propaganda, it’s hard to argue its effectiveness in World War II. It created, number one, hate for the enemy. It brought out bravery and courage in men. It empowered women to work in these factories and these plants, and it convinced people to ration their food and help our troops believe in the cause of the war. Its effectiveness, friends, was indisputable. And propaganda films have a very important place in American World War II history. The propaganda during the war aided in creating a groundswell of support for the war. In fact, data shows that from 1917 to 1973, three of the top four years of what’s called inductions into service were from the World War II era– 3.0 in 1942, 3.3 in 1943, and 1.6 million in 1944. Now, these figures represent the number of folks who freely entered, who signed up for service to the selective service system. And in the end, it was America and her allies that triumphed against both the Japanese and the Germans, thanks in part to the film shots fired by the powerful propaganda machine of World War II. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] [MUSIC PLAYING]

TRANSCRIPT

– [MUSIC PLAYING] All right, welcome. Real quick disclaimer about some of the content today. These were illustrations and slogans that were written in the ’30s and ’40s. And so we’ll be discussing them as they were presented. They are very much just plainly racist, the way some of the other nationalities are drawn in caricatures. So I just wanted you to be aware of that before we start our presentation today. Sp let’s get to Comics at War. The isolationist stance taken by the United States during the early months of World War II was quickly dissolved after two years. After Pearl Harbor the principal concern became financing the war effort, which resulted in the US Treasury creating a defense bond program. To persuade Americans to purchase these bonds, propaganda was unleashed in many forms. Most adults would see this propaganda in the forms of posters and in short films before movies. But for children, comic books became the method of this communication. The comic books embodied the virtues of what it was to fight evil during World War II. In fact, the comic book still embodies the same virtues today. Back in 1977 author Michael Uslan stated the following about the nature of comic books. “From the 1930s through today comic books have expressed the trends, conventions, and concerns of American life. Comics have been a showcase for national views, slang, morals, customs, traditions, racial attitudes, fads, heroes of the day, and everything else that make up our lifestyles.” Comic books as we know them today arrived in the late 1930s. In June 1938 Action Comic Number 1 premiered and released and exposed Superman to the world, the character who encapsulated all that was good about America and humanity. And he became a star of the result of this issue. Other characters soon followed, including the Human Torch, Batman, the Sub-Mariner, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, The Shield, and of course Captain America. Superman became popular for many reasons. Like many Americans, Superman was an immigrant, albeit from an alien world. You could argue that Superman was the ultimate immigrant being away from his parents and his family. Secondly, Superman espoused the virtues of hard work, justice, and truth. Comic books also became popular for other virtues during the 1930s, which was experiencing the Great Depression. “Even as a form of escape,” Scott Cord claims, “the comic book allowed readers to fantasize about punishing real life wrongdoers. Since the depression was overtaking the concerns of Americans during the 1930s, readers enjoyed seeing superheroes fight against those who exploited the bad times for their own financial benefits. For example, early characters such as the Green Lantern, Superman, and Batman often took on corrupt businessmen who mistreated poor and desperate workers in the late 1930s.” The effort to win the war went hand-in-hand with the comics. The main focus of comics during that period was to sell war bonds. Most if not all comics used their superheroes to prove their patriotism during the war. Covers of comics during this time usually had graphics urging customers to invest in war bonds. Comic books went the extra mile when supporting the propaganda movement. Publishers often transformed superheroes to fit the ideal patriotic character. The covers of these comics always boasted lines supporting buying and selling of war bonds. The aim of this form of propaganda was directly related to these sales. The key to winning the war was for all Americans to pitch in and do their part. And the availability of war bonds was the way in which all could participate. In 1940 and 1941, many comic books had story lines about the events of the wars in Europe and Asia. These stances, of course, were before the United States entered the war and they were quite controversial. At a time when most Americans wanted nothing to do with another war in Europe, the characters in the comic books did. And many of the writers of the comic book heroes were actually Jewess and felt it was their duty to influence the American public of the dangers of what was taking place overseas. Early editions of Batman comics shed light on the fact that Batman never used guns or killed. But in this 1943 comic book, you can see Batman as he is supplying guns to American soldiers and supporting the seventh war loan. DC Comics also use Batman in the crusade to persuade Americans to purchase war bonds. One cover of a Batman comic, number 18 right here, shows Batman and his sidekick Robin blowing up a firecracker in the face of the Axis leaders. The cover reads, “Ensure the 4th of July. Buy war bonds and stamps.” Other comics include Batman as well as Superman. The cover of a DC winter issue, right here, depicts Superman, Batman, and Robin as selling war bonds at a newsstand. The sign above them reads, “Sink the Japanazis with war bonds and stamps.” Other publishers participated in this comic book propaganda, as well. Superheros such as the Green Hornet, the Spy Smasher, Captain Marvel, Catman, and the Black Terror were all used to fight against American enemies. The US government also joined in the creation of their own comic books. In 1943 the United States was in dire need of plane fuel. By this time workers stationed at oil refineries were becoming bogged down in their work. The government’s Petroleum Administration for War designed comic books to inspire the workers. The first comic, Coming on a Wing and a Prayer, was a huge success and forced the PAW to create the Undercover War comic book series. These comics proved to workers how important their job was. Captain America embodied the use of comic books as propaganda during the Second World War. His character was tailor made to support the overall war effort. A now famous superhero, he was created to sell war bonds. Put in creation in 1941 by Timely Comics, but later Marvel Comics, Captain America became the face of World War II comic propaganda. The main character, Steve Rogers, a frail young man, unfit for service is invited to participate in a secret program to become a super soldier. He participates and now he is the peak of human perfection and he aids the United States in the war effort. Captain America sports a costume with the American flag, carries a shield made out of vibranium from Wakanda and it is bullet proof and used as a weapon. Many covers of Captain America comics show the superhero going toe to toe with Nazi soldiers and even Hitler himself. This created widespread support of the war effort and Captain America comics. The covers of Captain America fighting against Hitler stirred US support and increased the war bond. Fighting for the United States at this time was viewed as the utmost heroic deed. Though a fiction story, the creation of Captain America brought forth the idea that all citizens were capable of supporting those abroad. The addition of Timely Comics’ Captain America was essential to the sale of comic books and war bonds. Captain America’s transformation was relatable to the American population. Citizens realized, as regular citizens they too could contribute to the war effort. The purchasing of war bonds was a way that all citizens could help and Captain America was essential to that. This cover right here was published a full nine months before the United States entered the war. And you see captain America punching Hitler in the face. The writers, Joe Simon and Jack Kirby, received hate mail for this cover and expressed concern about the goals of Captain America. They were opposed to such story lines. Captain America stood out in his patriotic red, white, and blue uniform and the ideals of American nationalism. Within a year Pearl Harbor had occurred. And Captain America’s views about evil became the norm. When the war began 15 million comic books were being published a month. Two years later 25 million copies were sold a month. Superman and Captain America each sold a million editions a month. And the largest single customer in the United States was the United States Army. The army originally brought comics as a diversion. But soon many of the soldiers became hooked on the story lines, character development, and the virtuous fight against evil and oppression. Throughout the war, comic book superheroes were involved in doing things to help the war effort beyond just fighting. They did things like deliver supplies, stop spies at home, and do whatever they could do to help the soldiers in the war. The depiction of the character’s actions were simplistic and good always triumphed over evil. The characters are always illustrated warrings and how children could help win the war. Superman was also transformed into a patriotic hero willing to do anything to defend his country. Superman appeared in numerous DC Comics over the span of World War II. The cover of a Superman comic, number 58, reads, “Superman says you can slap a Jap with war bonds and stamps.” Another comic throws its support behind the seventh war loan. And it reads, “And it isn’t Superman who’s doing this. It’s the American people.” However, Superman never fought the war. You would think that he could have ended the war by himself. And the authors of Superman were aware of this and did not want that. So instead they created this comic book story right here where Clark Kent so anxious to pass his physical uses his X-ray vision and reads the eye chart in the neighboring room. And he flunks his physical, is declared 4-F, and is forced to do what he can along the home front. Captain America was the major exception. With his sidekick, 12-year-old Bucky Barnes, they took a firsthand role in fighting the forces of evil. What made Captain America comics different for the time period was they were violent, in fact, shockingly violent for the time period. Characters were shot between the eyes, left beaten and bloodied, and tortured. Another aspect of Captain America that endeared him to many Americans was he always fought by the rules and his antagonists always cheated and lost. Soon other comics followed. Individual stories of bravery and courage ended with the American soldier overcoming fear and saving the day. Meant at first to inspire those at home, the characters would also inspire those actually doing the fighting. Many of the writers of these comic books were part of the Office of War information. And these organizations were supposedly interested in giving accurate information about what was happening overseas. Even the advertisements in the comic books were war related. In addition to those superheroes, ordinary people, women and children, and character’s had their own comics. Boy Commandos was a group of 12-year-olds out to save the world. Wonder Woman did her part fitting in with the stereotypes of the day, though she served as a nurse in World War II, not like some of the comic book covers recorded today. In addition comics portraying real people, like Eleanor Roosevelt, were made showing her contributions to the war. As the war wound down, so did many of the characters. Superman and Lois got hitched and had super babies. Batman went back to fighting the master villains of Gotham. And in 1956 Captain America was canceled. Many soldiers who had read comics overseas found them to be a comfort on their return. Maybe it was escapism, maybe it was habit, but either way they were a solace to many of the soldiers who would later introduce the comics to their children. By 1947 comic books sold 60 million issues a month. By the early 1950s the so-called “Golden Age of Comics,” character’s had transitions to mundane activities. With no evil left to fight, comics like Archie, Veronica, Jughead, and Richie Rich became the mainstream from the middle of the ’50s through the middle of the 1960s. Comic books in World War II played a significant role in the education of a young populace before, during, and after the war. From Captain America punching Hitler in the face before Pearl Harbor to encouraging the war effort on the home front through the actions of advertisements, these pieces of art educated a country at war. The most surprising influence comics had was those who actually participated in the combat. The books were seen as something to take their mind off what was to come and what had taken place. They were cheap, easy to carry, and the comic itself did not require a college education to read. It was part entertainment, part instruction manual, and part psychologist for the soldier. While the comic books did display propaganda, it was also commercialism at its finest. Comic books were big money and they heralded the youth culture to come into the 1950s. The comic book actually became part of the war itself. And it showed what children and young men could do to help the war effort through the character’s actions and through the advertisements in the comic itself. Children used the comic book to keep up to date with what was happening through most of the war. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] [MUSIC PLAYING]

A flock of sheep is not just a massive, homogenous unit of fluffiness; sheep were (and are) given names, and they learn the voice of the shepherd. In John 10:3, Jesus says, “The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep recognize his voice and come to him. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.” In this passage, He was referring to an authentic, regular practice that his listeners would understand.

In poetry, imagery allows readers the ability to relate to and engage in what is being written. David, the shepherd-poet turned king, used imagery in masterful ways to show God’s grandeur and intimate care for us. Imagery and metaphor are often tied together as we see in the case of sheep in the Scripture. We can look at the Psalms, one of the most beloved books of poetry of all time, through various lenses of poetic form.

In poetry, imagery allows readers the ability to relate to and engage in what is being written.

One form of poetry is called a conceit. Conceit has nothing to do with the nature of a puffed-up person; rather, the term comes from the meaning of the word ratio, the Latin word for “concept.” A conceit is a poem comprised of an extended metaphor that stays with the parallel comparison of two objects or roles to paint a picture of a single concept. One of the most beloved Psalms is Psalm 23, which can be viewed as a classic conceit.

The Psalmist opens with “The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.” The implicit trust in the role of the shepherd to provide for the sheep is addressed right away. The shepherd provides food, water, and rest. According to “The Basque Sheepherder and the Shepherd Psalm,” by James K. Wallace, Wallace interviewed a shepherd, Ferando D’Alfonso, and learned much about the provision the shepherd makes for his sheep.

Shepherds plan out the grazing for their flocks a day beforehand. They must have a plan of action as to what pastures they will head toward. As they lead sheep to a suitable pasture, they recognize the importance in starting the journey early to allow sufficient time for the sheep to graze on roughage as they progress to greener pastures. Sheep have no idea where they will search for food, but the shepherd leads them as needed. The same concept applies to finding water; conditions have to be favorable or else the sheep will resist. If a stream does not have a rock pool, a shepherd will make a pocket with his hands from which his sheep can drink.

As a whole, the character of the Lord as a trustworthy, concerned, caring Provider is illuminated for readers in David’s conceit as the role of the shepherd is seen as mirroring the constant watch of our Heavenly Father.

Other parts of the conceit work to further the parallel of sheep and shepherd and believer and Lord. When David writes, “He restoreth my soul…,” he may have been referring to the daily practice by which each sheep was petted and inspected by the shepherd; in other words, each sheep enjoyed a moment of communion with its shepherd that was specifically for its health and comfort. When he writes of the Valley of Death, Wallace notes: “There is an actual Valley of the Shadow of Death in Palestine… south of the Jericho Road leading from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea.” It is traversed to take sheep for seasonal grazing, but it is a narrow and treacherous route with “gullies seven or eight feet deep”; there is even a spot where the shepherd must get the sheep to jump. If they fall in the gully, the shepherd’s crook must be used to lift them out. If predators such as wild dogs should come near, the rod is employed defensively to keep them from taking sheep. Thus, the sheep knows the master will ensure their safety, even in dangerous landscapes.

And should the sheep get any cuts or abrasions during the daily trek, each is examined for such at the end of the day as they are returned to the fold. D’Alfonso notes that “at every sheepfold, there is a big earthen bowl of olive oil and a large jar of water. As the sheep come in for the night, they are led to a gate…as each sheep passes, he quickly examines it for briers in the ears, snags in the cheek, or weeping of the eyes from dust or scratches.” If any such sheep are discovered, they are then pulled out of line and cared for – its wounds washed and anointed with the oil. Once all the sheep are secured, “the shepherd places his staff within reach in case it is needed during the night. Then he wraps himself in his woolen robe and lies across the gateway, facing the sheep for his night’s repose.”

The conceit works well to maintain and expand the roles of the sheep versus the responsibility and reliability of the Provider. As a whole, the character of the Lord as a trustworthy, concerned, caring Provider is illuminated for readers in David’s conceit as the role of the shepherd is seen as mirroring the constant watch of our Heavenly Father. We shall not want.

Speaking of Moria, some of Tolkien’s development of Khuzdûl can be seen in the name of the dwarvish city. Khazâd is the Khuzdûl word for dwarves. Dûm means “mansion.” Thus, Moria, Khazâd-dûm, is the “dwarf mansion.” The dwarves also had their own name for Gandalf – Tharkûn. The interesting thing to note here is that the orcs had a very similar name for Saruman in the Black Speech – Sharkû, which means “old man.” Since both the Black Speech and Khuzdûl were invented by Vala (Morgoth and Aulë respectively), it is interesting that such similar words would be ascribed to separate wizards in separate languages.

Since Tolkien did not fully develop the language, David Salo was hired to further develop the language for use in the movies. Because of the secretiveness of the dwarves, very little of the language was even portrayed in the movies. The most common dwarvish sentences were insults. When meeting with Thranduil, Thorin says, “Imrid amrâd ursul” – “Die a fiery death.” When Thorin then recounts the meeting to Balin from his prison cell, he states that he told Thranduil “to ‘Ishkh khakfe andu null’” – “pour my excrement on his head.” Another dwarvish insult came from Gimli in The Fellowship of the Ring when the company was stopped by Haldir’s company in Lóthlorien. Gimli asks him to speak in the common speech so everyone can understand. He then says, “Ishkh khaqwi ai durugnul” – “I spit on your grave.” Comparing Thorin’s insult to Gimli’s can show a little bit about the Khuzdûl language’s syntax and morphology.

One other language in The Lord of the Rings shows another real-world aspect of languages – the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This hypothesis basically states that language can manipulate how one perceives reality and vice versa. An extreme view of this would mean that people whose language only has two different color words would only actually perceive two different colors in the world (many shades, perhaps, but only two distinct colors), or a language with no words for time would not perceive the linear nature of the passage of time. A looser interpretation of this would mean that a people group who culturally hold that gratitude is truly only shown by actions won’t have words to express thanks.

Tolkien’s Entish language demonstrates this theory despite being largely undeveloped. Jim Allen stated that the Ents’ language would be repetitions upon repetitions upon repetitions with slight variations. This is very similar to the rings inside the trunk of a tree repeating endlessly upon each other the longer the tree lives. Since the Ents are basically living trees, this correlation is interesting. Another aspect of this in the Ents’ language is the length of their words, names, and conversations. Ents are immortal and ever-growing (like trees), so they view time very differently. Nothing happens quickly for them, so their language likewise carries that detailed, methodical feel. Treebeard says his name is ever growing and that the Entish name for orcs is “like years of torment.” The only sample of Entish in The Lord of the Rings is “a-lalla-lalla-rumba-kamanda-lindor-burúmë” which is part of the name of a hill.

Reflections of Middle-Earth in the Real World

While many linguistic aspects of real-world languages went into Tolkien’s creation of the languages of Middle-Earth, his love of the world, peoples, and stories that he created was reflected in his own life as well. After his death in 1973, he was buried in the same grave as his wife (she died two years earlier), and on the headstone, he was named Beren. Beren was a mortal man during the First Age of Middle-Earth who fell in love with and married the elf-maiden Lúthien. Their story is remembered even to the end of the Third Age when Frodo overhears Aragorn singing “The Lay of Lúthien.” Tolkien wasn’t narcissistically imagining himself as the hero of one of his stories. Instead, he saw himself as a mere mortal who had fallen in love with an unattainable beauty and somehow gained her love back. On the same headstone, his wife Edith is named Lúthien. Thus, the real-world is reflected in the languages of Middle-Earth, the foundation of the world and stories, and the fantasy world is reflected in Tolkien’s own life. Namarië.

“éala éarendel engla beorhtast / ofer middangeard monnum sended ”
(Hail, Eárendil, brightest of angels/over middle-earth sent to men).

He wove the name into his legends by making Eärendil a half-elf, half-man. Eärendil then saved the world (Beleriand) by sailing an impossible journey to beg for the Valar’s aid. His heroism earned him and his wife (also half-elven) the chance to choose whether they would live immortally in Aman (Heaven) like elves or die as humans. They both chose to be immortal. The background here affects readers/watchers of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings because this choice was also passed on to their two sons, Elros and Elrond. That’s right – the same Elrond in The Lord of the Rings. Elrond, the lord of Rivendell, is actually half-elf. He, obviously, chose immortality which his daughter Arwen later did not choose when extended the same option. His brother, Elros, chose to become mortal. He became the first king of Númenor – Aragorn’s 114x-great-grandfather. That is why Aragorn’s mother took him to Rivendell when he was just a baby – Elrond was his relative (very distantly).

Tolkien got several other familiar names from an Old Norse poem – the Völuspá – from the Poetic Edda (collection of Old Norse poems). The following lines of the poem come from stanzas 10-15 and 64:

Of all the dwarves,/ and Durin next…
Austri and Vestri/ Althjof, Dvalin,
Nar and Nain,/ Niping, Dain,
Bifur, Bofur,/ Bombur, Nori…
Vigg and Gandalf,/ Vindalf, Thrain,
Thekk and Thorin,/ Thror, Vit and Lit…
Fili, Kili,/ Fundin, Nali…
Hor, Haugspori,/ Hlevang, Gloin,
Dori, Ori,/ Duf, Andvari…
Roofed with gold, on Gimle it stands;

Armed with such names, Tolkien created colorful characters to populate his stories.One other element of real-world legend snuck into Tolkien’s tales is actually hidden in a trick of the languages of Middle-Earth. As previously mentioned, Elros, Elrond’s brother, became the first king of Númenor. Númenor was established as an island nation in the great sea with Middle-Earth to the east and Aman (closer) to the west. As humans, they were told never to sail to Aman as only the elves were permitted to set foot there. For centuries, the Númenoreans were content, but eventually one king broke that commandment and tried to start a war with the Valar. Because of this transgression, the island nation was sunk into the sea. Surviving descendants of Elros established the Middle-Earth kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor and told the tale of the breaking of the world, the sinking of Númenor, and the danger of defying the Valar. They called this tale Akallabêth in their language, which means “the downfallen.” When the name is translated into Quenya (the language of the elves), it is called Atalantë. Doesn’t that sound like a legend you know about an island nation that sank beneath the sea?

Digglossia in Middle-Earth

As referenced early, Tolkien recognized that creating one language for the entire history of a very diverse and geographically expansive society would not be realistic, so he created language families. However, he also realized that multiple language families would interact in a variety of ways. One of the ways that variant languages interact is called digglossia. Digglossia occurs when two or more language variations (completely separate languages or just dialects of the same language) are used by the same society. Rather than have a confusing mix of the languages (think Joss Whedon’s Firefly), they become stratified in the society. Each variation will take on certain functions, typically labeled as high and low. High functions include religion, ceremony, politics, and other formal elements of culture. Low functions include everyday conversations, bartering, and other less formal elements of daily life. Since Tolkien’s elves divided into several different groups over their very long history, there are multiple variations of Elvish throughout Middle-Earth. During the third age (the time of the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings), there are two elvish languages commonly spoken – Quenya (the “high” language) and Sindarin (the “low” language).

As was mentioned in a previous article, two groups of elves made it all the way to Aman – the Vanyar and the Noldor. The Noldor, though, eventually rebelled and actually killed other elves. For this, they were banished from Aman and forced to return to Middle-Earth. Among these elves was Galadriel, Lady of Light. Their language was Quenya. When they arrived in Beleriand, the elves they met (the Sindar) no longer spoke Quenya, but Sindarin. When the Sindar learned that the Noldor had slain their own kind, the king outlawed the Quenya language entirely. As a result, the Noldor learned and spoke Sindarin. Over time, Quenya returned, but only for high ceremonies like the naming of kings and queens. This digglossic relationship is evident throughout The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.

There are several instances of Quenya in the books and movies. In each case, the language is used for ceremonial, formal, and traditional purposes. For instance, when Frodo meets the elf Gildor, he uses a formal Quenya greeting, “Elen sɪ́la lumenn’ omentielvo.” When Galadriel says goodbye to Aragorn in Lothlorien, she uses the formal Quenya “Namarië.” In another instance, Frodo uses Quenya when he says, “Aiya Eärendil Elenion Ancalima!” to invoke the light of Eärendil to ward off Shelob in the pass of Cirith Ungol. Also, at the end of The Lord of the Rings, as Aragorn is crowned king, his coronation oath, an obviously formal ceremonial event, is in Quenya (I have no idea why Peter Jackson had him so awkwardly sing the oath in the movies).

Another element of digglossia in Middle-Earth can be seen in Aragorn’s names. Remember: Elrond’s brother Elros was the first in Aragorn’s royal ancestry. This line of kings spoke Adûnaic, but to honor their elvish ancestry, they used Quenya as their high language of ceremony just as the elves did; thus, each king of Númenor took a royal name in Quenya. Elros was Tar-Minyatur. Tar is the Quenya word for “king.” As the generations slowly became more conceited and more deluded by Sauron, they stopped taking their royal names in Quenya. The first king to take his royal name in Adûnaic called himself Ar-Adûnakhôr. One can still see the influence of Quenya on Adûnaic here: tar and ar both mean “king” in their respective languages. This was a double-insult. First, he forsook the high language as an insult to the elves. Second, his name meant “Lord of the West” – a title formerly only held by the king of the Valar. After that, Quenya became outlawed in Númenor, and a few generations later, Númenor was destroyed. Centuries later Aragorn was born. He was given the Sindarin name of Aragorn which means “Lord of the Tree.” He commonly went by the nickname Telcontar, also Sindarin, for “strider.” However, once he was crowned king, he took the royal name Ellessar. Ellessar is Quenya for “elfstone.” Thus, Aragorn continued the digglossic tradition of royal names that Elros started centuries earlier.

To Guinness, what we need “is a constructive overarching vision of Christian engagement in today’s advanced modern world, one that is shaped by faith in God and a Christian perspective rather than by current wisdom, and one that can inspire Christians to move out with courage to confront the best and worst that we may encounter” (p.27).

In an effort to encourage the Church toward renaissance, Guinness offers three major tasks for the global church in the twenty-first century: to prepare the Global South, to win back the Western world, and to contribute to the human future (p.35). Guinness explains how Christianity is flourishing in the Global South and is in dire need of assistance as it encounters “development” and “modernization.” He would have Western churches harness their newly acquired wisdom from facing the woes of modernization and use it to help the Global South approach the task constructively. Implementing evangelism, adequate teaching and discipleship, Guinness suggests, will help guard the Global South from submitting to the spirit of the age or a secularized culture.

His second task of “winning back the West” might be the most difficult, if not the most important, of the three tasks. Guinness quells the notion that he argues for Western-centrism or Western exceptionalism. Instead, he is compelled to win back the West because it is “our Jerusalem” and therefore, our duty to restore. Framing our perspective he states, “To Christians in the West, countries such as Korea and Kenya are the uttermost parts of the earth, just as we are the uttermost parts of the earth to them.” His argument is simple but profound—we must win the West because it is home.

Guinness’ third task for the global church is to contribute to the human future. Christians are called to do good (Gal. 6:9) which includes working hard for future generations and the restoration of the created order. Guinness advises the “coming generation of Christian men and women” to “tackle the even greater issues of the global era that otherwise threaten to call into question the very future of humanity and the planet itself” (p.50). Guinness names several issues facing the next generation of Christians including: a constructive Christian critique of capitalism, nuclear proliferation, reliable access to water, inequities between rich and poor, modeling a solid way of life for families, and much more.

Renaissance is a summons for the Church to appear, once again and forevermore, in the pubic square as an example or embodiment of truth and love. The remainder of the book provides an outline for accomplishing a modern renaissance and offers historical examples of how God has brought light into the world when it seemed to only be getting darker. Pastors and laity alike can derive much from this book as we work in unison to bring about God’s Kingdom and a revitalization of the global church.