10.1 2 Samuel 1

News of Saul's Death Reaches David

After Saul's death, unknown to David, he returns from his expedition against the Amalekites to Ziklag and is there for two days and only on the third hears news of the defeat.

Saul's Amalekite Soldier

That many of the details of the Amalekite's story do accord with what we've read in 1 Sam 31 and 1 Chron 10 suggests he was in close proximity with the king before his death and may have even heard the king ask his bodyguard (armor bearer) to kill him. He is close enough to see the king die, able to evade death at the hands of the Philistines (including arrows), get to the king's body and remove both crown and a royal gold armband, and then still escape before Philistine looters arrive the next day. It is telling that he can identify the king while it isn't clear that the Philistines who shot him could (would they have prioritized retrieving a high value target in the heat of battle if they knew)? He also knows enough about the rivalry between David and Saul to believe he can use it to curry favor in David's eyes.

Why does Saul have an Amalekite soldier in close proximity?

When David asks who he is, he identifies himself as "an Amalekite", and then later as "the son of a foreigner, an Amalekite" (therefore under Jewish law would be considered an Amalekite even if he personally had been born in Israel). Could this be an implementation of Deut 23:7 which states that after the third generation, Egyptian and Edomites in the land, converted, can be treated as fully Israelite, and this was being applied to an Amalekite?

Amalekites being the historic ruthless, vicious, hated enemy of Israel, such that they are one of only a few peoples God explicitly ordered to be exterminating to the last man, what is this Amalekite's relationship to Saul?

After Samuel killed the Amalekite King, Agag (1 Sam 15), would Saul have further defied Samuel by deliberately keeping other Amalekites alive? Or giving them favored status in the army? Was this man a defector? Was he an earlier captive from Saul's actions. Was he a slave? Or did he win favor in the eyes of the Israelite king? Was he an opportunistic traitor to his people?

He tells David a story that he "happened to be on Mt. Gilboa" when the king died. Did he mean was implausibly just passing through (a battle area), or that, having "escaped the Israelite camp" he happened to be stationed on Mt. Gilboa at the time Saul retreated onto it?

He emphasizes that Saul tell him he is already mortally wounded, but not yet dead, and then as if to confirm, mentions that he saw that Saul's arrow wound was mortal, which ideally absolves him of guilt for dealing a final blow, painting it as an ordered act of mercy.

These tactics fail and David executes him for killing YHWH's annointed.

David's Lament

David then lament's Saul's death in song. V20, as follows:

“Tell it not in Gath,
    proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon,
lest the daughters of the Philistines be glad,
    lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice.

...seems to indicate that David does not know that the Philistines know they killed Saul and continues to hope that they don't find this out.

9.26-31 - Recap of 1 Sam 26-31

1 Samuel 26-31, Recapping

David was in area of Carmel, (not Mt. Carmel), south of Hebron, near desert of Paran (west of dead sea).

Strategic Situation of Israel

As a Benjamite, Sauls tribe is known for particularly strong fighters among Israel. They are the smallest of the tribes having nearly been exterminated shorty after Joshua's death (roughly 400+ years before Saul), and are geographically surrounded by the land of Judah around them. Consequently while Sauls power base is Benjamin and his capital Gibeah, just north of later Jerusalem (Jebus) much of Saul's military strength derives from Judah with the ability to call from the other tribes as needed.

Gibeah is Saul's capital. Saul is still in Gibeah, 1 Sam 26, before he receives intel from Zephites that David is on hill of Hachilah, "before" Jeshimon (a barren, waste area on the West bank of Dead Sea).

Saul leads 3,000 into Zeph Wilderness to pursue. After David sneaks into Saul's camp then taunts/chastises Saul's army for not protecting him properly, Saul returns to "his place" (likely Gibeah) and David "continues on".

Note: 3,000 soldiers are likely the forces which can easily be called up quickly from among fighting age men local to Judah and Benjamin. This is likely not a full mobilization. It may indicate that armies in those days for major conflict would be typically in the low tens of thousands, while the raiding parties of Amalekites may be in the low thousands.

David could now be heading East, away from to other side of Jordan, as referenced by having to "cross over" (the Jordan) to head West. "Crossing over" could refer to the territory of Judah, although it puts David at risk taking his forces anywhere near Saul's.

David changes mind and seeks refuge in Philistines lands, and so "crosses over". Refuge is with Achish, son of Moach, king of Gath, part of Philistine confederation, one of the five major Philistine city-states (Gath, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, and Ekron). Saul discontinues tracking David once he hears he is out of reach in Philistine territory.

David and band initially live in the royal city of Gath, each soldier allowed his own "household". David, perhaps preferring to avoid the scrutiny of the Philistines and maintain independence, asks the king for a city in Philistine territory. Gath and Ekron are the two nearest Judean land, while the other three are directly on the coast, with Gath being the closest geographically to Judea and therefore the first to see battles with Israel.

Achish, hoping to put David's alientation to use against the Israelite enemies, gives David the town of Ziklag on Judean march, near the Negev (the southern desert areas) where the Amalekites live. David's base will be Ziklag for 1 year, 4 months.

David lies constantly to Achish about raiding Judeans, Jerahmeelites, and Kenites in the Negev. Achish is then convinced that David is such a rabid enemy of his own people that he has no place to return among them and is a proper vassal of Achish. To his mind, David might even make a suitable vassal king one day once if Saul is finished.

Note: the Philistines may colonize cities but appear to prefer to stay in their coastal cities, so long as enemy kingdoms do as they are told, are not a military threat, and pay tribute. They do not appear to take prisoners in general (excepting high value prisoners like Samson), unlike the Amalekite raiders.

After the events of 1 Sam 15, Saul may have pacified Amalekites sufficiently that they were not a high threat to Saul's kingdom, as evidenced by at least one Amalekites fighting with/for Saul at the Battle of Mt. Gilboa. They may have laid low but only recently become emboldened by new fighting between the Philistines and Saul, reversing the defeats of 1 Sam 14 with Saul and Jonathan and 17, 18, 23 under David.

David begins raiding and destroying Israel's enemies far from Philistine land, exterminating conquered so reports don't get back to Philistines. David raids often in Geshur, brings back spoils to Achish who doesn't ask difficult questions and takes David's word that the spoils come from Judean March.

Option: Geshur in the Golan (Northern Theory)

A kingdom/territory of Geshur is commonly recognized in modern Golan.

With the blessing of Gath, David may transit the Shephelah and Jezreel valley to access Golan but this would risk discovery passing so close by Gath. David *could* be transiting via Moab or on Western side of Jordan/Dead sea to access Golan. David has family in Moab and sent his parents there for safety (1 Sam 22). May maintain connections dating back to Ruth's day (great grandmother). In this way David's expeditions could be seen to be returning from the direction of the Negev and be believable to Achish.

Option: Geshur near Egypt (Southern Theory, Preferred)

1 Samuel 27:8 states "Now David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites and the Amalekites. (From ancient times these peoples had lived in the land extending to Shur and Egypt.)" This strongly places Geshur near other groups known to be in/near the southern Negev wildnerness although this Geshur has yet to be solidly located. This makes more sense of where David is best positioned and how he can raid easily and be seen by the Philistines to be raiding in the expected direction. (Leaving for days at a time to raid in the North, skirting Saul's kingdom, would be a feat, difficult to keep quiet, and there would be less pressure to slaughter everyone since those in the northern kingdom would be less likely to be in contact with the Philistines anyway.)

NOTE: The Philistines, Amalekites, Israelites all appear to speak a common tongue. Foreigners among different groups are not uncommon (i.e. the Amalekite in Saul's army who notes he is considered foreigner, and foreign men of renown among David's inner circle, the presence of Anakim Nephilim like Goliath and others whose ancestors took refuge from Joshua/Caleb and evidently continued some semblance of a distinct bloodline).

Achish reassures a bloodthirsty David that when the time comes to exterminate Saul, David will be by his side with his forces. Achish names him part of his permanent bodyguard without evident reservation and is loath to part with him. Of note: David was once part of Saul's bodyguard.

The Philistines mobilize near Aphek, which is the same place as where the Philistines captured the ark in the days of the High Priest Eli before Saul became king. Aphek is within one day's march, west from Shiloh where the tabernacle was often. It is along the southern branch of Yarkon river, heading up to Judean foothills.

David's Detour

Note: Chronologically, Chapter 29 appears to happen BEFORE chapter 28 and is somewhat of a sidenote explaining what happened to David; how he was not at the Battle of Mt. Gilboa.

David is intially part of the muster at Aphek bringing 600 men to the Philistine's side. The other Philistine lords have heard the Israelite songs of "David has slain his ten thousands" (referencing Philistine losses) and wisely insist he stay behind lest he turn against them in the heat of battle and earn his way back into Saul's good graces with Philistine blood.

Achish is conciliatory in ordering David to leave the army and return to Ziklag, which is either a 3 day march away (or this more likely represents the total time that David was away at the muster). While David was at Aphek, Amalekites raid Negev and Ziklag and take the whole population alive as captives.

This suggests the David essentially left Ziklag defenseless and invites the further question that, if he had gone with Achish to Gilboa and only then fought on Saul's side, what was his plan with all of the women and children left at the mercy of a defeated and vengeful Philistine people?

David's army wants to stone him. David's army has Abiathar the priest with them, who conveys God's blessing on a pursuit. David's already travel-exhausted army executes a forced march in pursuit of Amalekites. 200 can't continue and stay at Besor brook ford, while 400 continue on.

They find an Egyptian slave dying of thirst/hunger, left behind by an Amalekite master. Interrogated, he extracts a promise of safety from David (not to kill him or return him to his master).

That the Amalekites took Ziklag and killed no one, but one of their chiefs left behind the dead weight of a sick servant, suggest 1) return speed was essential and 2) in killing no one from Ziklag and taking them all captive, none of the captives were deemed similarly dead weight and left behind or killed on the way. Thus most if not (likely) all of the inhabitants of Ziklag we're mobile and did not consistent of aging relatives. As David left his parents in Moab, his small army took only those who could move easily while evading Saul.

The Amalekites are found spread out and gorging themselves, all slaughtered except for 400 camel riders. Since the 400 are apparently a minority, David's army of 400 was likely very outnumbered, even if they had the advantage of surprise and a dulled opponent.

David shares  the spoils with the 200 left behind despite protestations of the 400 who had done the fighting. Shares spoils with towns of Judah (some were raided), which are now indebted to David, and to the towns in larger region, especially places which sheltered David. This only likely increases their eagerness to later recognize David as king after Saul's death.

Philistines on the Move

From Aphek the Philistines do not go east into the Judean hills to destroy Israel but turn north, likely passing Megiddo into the Jezreel valley, taking the same more gradual sloping path that later Assyrians and Romans would to assault Jerusalem. This may indicate that the direct route up from the plains was heavily defended or otherwise not viable. The "Shaaraim road" from Gath going east was an earlier point of access into the hills that was possible while the Philistines had significant control, and was also their route of retreat following David's killing of Goliath. They would not take this road again.

If you avoid a handful of dangerous eastward approaches into the hills from the coastlands, the remaining and easier points of entry lie heading south from the Jezreel Valley. Thus later kings like Solomon would heavily fortify access to the hills from the Jezreel. At this time, Megiddo is not a significant factor.

Thus, Saul either moved into Jezreel to counter the observed Philistine intent or he already believed they would have to use that route up into the hills. Philistines encamp at Shunum (on the south side of a hill north of Mt. Gilboa, with En Dor on the north slope) in response to reports of Saul in Jezreel, while Saul has camp near Jezreel spring (strategically near a water source? same as Spring of Harrod?) at the foot of Mt. Gilboa, with the ability to retreats to defensible heights. Saul's army consists of soldiers from both Western and Eastern sides of Jordan. Eastern soldiers came over from the fords east of the Jezreel Valley from Gilead and Gad (etc.)

Saul sneaks north around hill occupied Philistines to consult the witch at En-Dor, hence the disguise of himself and 2 bodyguards, not from the witch principally but rather disguised from the Philistines.

The Battle of Mt. Gilboa

The battle in Jezreel goes against Israel; Israel flees to safety of higher ground. In the middle of fierce fighting Saul is hit by arrows from archers and mortally wounded. This indicates safe spots for archers to fire from and clear distinctions of soldiers to identify targets. Israelite army may be fleeing and these are likely chariot-transported archers pursuing fleeing pockets of soldiers, as the Amalekite soldier recounts in 2 Sam 1.

This may indicate a successful flanking effort of the charioteers around the infantry fighting or an infantry breakthrough in the lines that the charioteers exploited to get through to attack the Israelite leaders. Saul dies next to his sons. The battle (or simply mop-up) continues a little longer since the chariot soldiers can't or won't get to king's body immediately but arrive only next day for looting (looting would not be feasible at night).

Additionally, the high ground may be safe enough from chariot-born attackers, beyond shooting arrows at range. The Amalekite soldier, as a part of Israel's army, knows who the king is, knows who David is, knows of the rivalry and is evidently close by enough to see king and bodyguard fall, but secure enough to retrieve royal crown and armband and flee to safety. The Amalekite confirms that Saul appeared mortally wounded before final death. He may even have been close enough to hear Saul's request to armor bearer and attempted to capitalize on it to win favor with David.

Saul's death seals the Philistine victory and causes a general route of rest of Israel's army. The cities are apparently abandoned (maybe all the cities in the Judean hills, at least temporarily or just the cities around Jezreel). Beth-Shan is likely abandoned with residents retreating accross the Jordan where possible. The Philistines may remain in revelry and celebration of their victory and not be vigilant at night. Saul's beheaded body (and those of his sons killed with him) is put on the wall as warning to Israel against further activity. Beth Shaan is apparently insufficiently guarded, so men from Jabesh Gilead are able to sneak in at night to retrieve the bodies, which are cremated instead of buried. This could indicate rare, local custom, or more likely the uncleanliness of the desecrated bodies which necessitated ritually burning them instead of burial. Jabesh Gilead then mourns/fasts for 1 week after Saul's bones are buried.

The Philistines take the head of Saul and fix in in the temple of Dagon (the city in 1 Chron 10 is not named, however, in Judges 16 Samson destroys the temple in Gaza) and displayed his armor in temple. Sauls weapons passed through all cities of Philistines.

Presumably most/all of Saul's fighting-age sons are at this battle. Saul is backed up onto the heights of Mt. Gilboa. He is possibly separated from his highly-capable commander, Abner, and a son, Ishbosheth. Abner and Ishboshether evacuate to the Jordan fords, escape across, and head south towards Gad. Cut-off from capital and homeland (Benjamin), Abner instates a new capital in Mahanaim, with Ishbosheth as the king, in the hills on the eastern side of the Jordan, south of Gilead, in Gad's territorry, far from Philistine Reach.

That David will leverage a base of support and take many army officers from Judah suggests that the Philistines don't press the war into the Judean hills. David likely enters these hills directly from the coastal/plain areas (that the Philistines avoided). That Abner and Ishbosheth do not return to their homeland of Benjamin suggests that they are practically cut off from access, perhaps by a continued Philistine presence in the Jezreel where fords are easier and the Dead Sea valley in the south. Thus, Judah is left to David to establish his competing throne.

Ishbosheth is king East of the Jordan leaving an effective power vacuum in the Judean hill region that David will fill immediately.

Some of Saul's younger sons and grandsons remain alive, likely in Gibeah; likely too young to accompany their father to the battle. Under David's effective control, he will turn them over to Gibeon to sate God's anger for the genocide Saul intended towards them.

Of Interest: Philistines and Amalekites

Amalekites appear to be somewhat of a barbarian people living in the Negev desert. They are frequently seen as raiders, destroying and despoiling, but not staying in conquered territories. They take captive/slaves back into their territories. No cities of theirs appear to be named in the Bible. They maintain long generational grudges and enmities. In 2 Samuel, they are mentioned in context of camel riders, reinforcing desert/wilderness adaptations. Their final (general) destruction will come only Hezekiah's despite Samuel's admonition to Saul to exterminate them wholesale. Hamman the Agagite (descendent of Agag -- probably a title rather a name), likely a descended of a royal Amalekite line, will turn up in Persia to threaten Esther's people one last time.

The Philistines set up their home in the coastal and sloping plain areas. While they can range far from their cities and even colonize outward (where easy), their preference seems to be to stick as much to their major cities and can be pushed easily out of conquered lands the farther away from the homeland they are. Their cities are established and they have a confederation-style coordination between independent city states. In contrast to the Amalekites, they maintain horses and chariots, suitable to warfare on plains and efficient deployment of infantry and archers into battle. Horses at this time are still not yet well bred into the shock cavalry or armored chariots styles which will come later.

The Philistines are still not the Imperial peoples which will come later (i.e. Assyrians, Babylonians, etc.) that extend their territory and cultures into foreign areas, maintaining presences specifically to dominate and assimilate the new peoples. They do not generally take captives but prefer to eliminate the elements and practices of subject peoples that could later pose a threat (i.e. blacksmiths, weapon crafting, etc.).

External References

www.esv.org/resources/esv-global-study-bible/map-09-08/

https://www.academia.edu/43548069/Talmai_King_of_Geshur

2.21 Reading Notes on 1 Pet 4:1-6

1 Peter 4

New International Version (NIV)

Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin. ² As a result, they do not live the rest of their earthly lives for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. ³ For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. ⁴ They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. ⁵ But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. ⁶ For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

Rebecca brought up the question last night in our reading as to what v6 actually means. A lot of people apparently had this question even back into Spurgeon's day (if not much earlier).

The difficulty hinges on v5 where God judges the living and the dead. V6 then references those who are now dead, that the Gospel is preached to those now dead, so that they might (present or future tensing) be judged. From 5a and 5b, the immediate feeling is that God is the one judging these dead. This is problematic because we have 5c where the implication is that these are Saints who live in the Spirit.  The phrasing "for this reason" ties this verse immediately into its predecessor.

Further and more glaringly, does this suggest that the Gospel was preached to those now dead after they died? Is God judging His Saints in some way according to human standards that then allows them to live according to Him?

Spurgeon commented on this and it makes a fair amount of sense.

"This is a very difficult passage to expound, but I suppose the meaning is that the gospel was preached to those departed saints who had been called to die for Christ’s sake, and that it was preached to them for this very reason, that, while they were judged by wicked men, and were by them condemned to die, they still live a far more glorious life than they lived here, because they were thus enabled, by their martyr death, to consummate their consecration to God."

The trouble is likely that despite the obvious links between "dead" and "judged" between the two verses, we're looking at different groups. V5, where God judges the living and the dead is a comprehensive statement of God's judgement purview. The "they" (sinful Gentiles abusing Christians) from v4 will be forced to give account of their actions to the One who judges everyone. In v6, the contrast is with the saints, judged "according to human standards" (i.e. by humans) negatively, according to their evil standards as referenced in v4, where they heap abuse on them.

The words sound the same so we're caught up in a problem question. But the context appears fairly straightforward. If we reserve our immediate inclination to say the "dead" in both verses must be the same and "judges/judged" is the same judgment from God, then the greater context establishes the meaning clearly.

The rendering of Verse 6 may be thus that the Gospel was preached to those Saints when they were alive, who are now dead, who are judged by sinful humans. It was preached so that those Saints may live according to God and in regard to the spirit. Further it was preached to invite censure from the Gentiles, which in turn would help the Saints living according to God.

The meaning is quite rich in retrospect.

Church Hunting: BB Church

BBC

Ugh. Unpleasant to write this.

BBC is nearby. As near as TCC. The pastor is a fair teacher. The theology is correct on the fundamentals. Rebecca is not overly fond of the frequent overuse of the drumset but I like the singing. It's strong and people seem to really enjoy it. This is good for corporate worship.

The first sermon we heard as a family was on Nehemiah and for the first time in a long time, I was really interested and Rebecca left hoping to hear the rest. The pastor did justice to it. Unfortunately, we were invited by friends to another church and missed it. But I liked that feeling of wanting to go back to hear more about the scriptures.

The next few sermons, most of which Rebecca wasn't able to make, more topical, less well done. And an illustration of what happens when fair teachers step away from just take the text, explain it, and don't stray farther. But, generally correct.

Even the last sermon on membership, which sets off triggers in me because I know how much the concept of modern church membership is abused, was handled fairly well. You could take "membership in the local church" and replace it with "commitment/involvement/affection for" and that would make sense and accord well with scripture.

The pastor isn't terribly young, but he feels young. Like sometimes he's playing a part, not quite ready for the big coat he believes he's already wearing. It's endearing at times. At other times, I'm not convinced he's comfortable with the part. That he doesn't have the age and experience to make what he's doing feel natural.

Wow... did they do an excellent job on their business meeting. They invited outsiders, told them this was a great way to understand how the church worked, they were transparent to extremes through the long meeting. This... was... well... done. Best I've seen. They really want people to know and understand and they have every reason to think this will glorify God and people will like it.

Pretty much, though, that pastor is the only one who will talk with me. The consistent impression from the church is ambivalence to visitors. We've gone there several months and don't know anyone. A handful of people have said a few words. One person actually engaged me in conversation, only to be interrupted by another women, disinterested in my presence, who needed to talk with him about some administrative matter in the church. I think he attempted to introduce me but beyond a quick acknowledgement she was back to business. A wonderful way to highlight how insignificant a visitor is and how irrelevant he is to the group. That may not be everyone there, but we've been going there at least 10 Sundays. This is probably the worst personal impression of any church we've visited, and I'm biased to like this church.

Here, for all of the good, there is a feeling of a lack of life in the church. Maybe they are friendly to each other, but as visitors, we might as well be coming as consumers, just to be served, then to leave. Less that we're obviously not a part of their life (we're new) but it's that we're obviously not a part of their potential life. They're good as is.

I'd wonder if maybe it's us, but then, we've been received well at many other places, even those with obvious red flags.

The pastor seems perhaps even a little overly friendly, possibly understanding that the church's life depends on new people coming, but it can't just be on him.

We will likely not go much longer if another option presents itself or if we don't break through soon.

Sad. Because there's a lot to like about it. But if you "have not love..."

We can't be part of another country club.

Church Hunting: Ch Baptist Church

ChBC

One family we knew had been going there. It turns out they stopped before we visited so although we'd expected very much to see them, and asked some of the regulars, none of them knew that family. Strange.

This church is a startup, pastor apparently trained at Capital Baptist. Sermons sounded all right. They also meet in a high school.

The first rainy day we visited, we were late, by even 30 minutes! We got to the front door of the high school, could see the signs for the church, but there was no one and the door was locked. That's our fault. I was upset with myself for not pushing us out our door faster. So we left, now too late to go to a church close to our house. We went to Costco and family Bible Study instead. I understand, but still a locked door wasn't pleasant.

It turns out, the regulars go around the school to the back where an unlocked door right into the sitting area exists. Didn't know that. We went by the posted signs.

The second time we went, we were there. Lots of people, young families, navigating the halls, depositing and recovering children. They brushed right by us. We awkwardly got into the meeting room. And a few people came up to us, one by one. One young man, Achill, chatted with us at length.  Usually the younger adults are more shy around older adults, but this guy seemed very excited to meet a new face. And we spoke until frankly I was tired of the conversation. But it was very welcoming, and nice to trade information about lives with someone else. It made the distance feel smaller. Another family, apparently visiting, was a source of conversation too. It was a lovely group.

The young pastor started speaking to Rebecca, happy to have us. Now it's something I've noticed in many young pastors, that there is a degree of separation, even in their friendliness. Like they have to maintain the sense that they are pastors, leaders welcoming followers, as opposed to equals, even having his role and job in the body.

Contrast this with Tom Leake and HBC who, for all my criticisms as to how that church has gone, he exuded overt humility and had a weight-of-the-world-on-his-shoulders burden to him. You wanted to like him, wanted to trust him, and he seemed serious. The sense, and what you want, is that any authority he had was there, necessary, for our benefit. At least, that is how it seemed at the time. And we wanted to come back, knowing little about the church, but impressed with how it's leader comported himself. The humility and pleasantness and kindness won us over very quickly.

I don't see that often.

This young man, was like many others. Maybe there's a feeling like he has to prove that he's a leader before he has a record to show that when he leads people they benefit. That's probably it.

The sermon was... iffy. On Jesus calming the waters. Not necessarily wrong, but the same sin as GBC. You picked a verse, and then used that as the launching point for what you wanted to say. At least he stuck more to the text, but he missed a few big deal take-aways, and highlighting things which were comparatively minor. Strikes me as a lack of attention, or maybe being too focused on what he wanted to say than let scripture speak for itself.

But there was another red flag. I don't remember the context, but membership seemed to be emphasized more often than would seem natural. Of course, any church has the right to include/exclude based on membership, but wisdom suggests that the more open the church is to outside, the better. There was a regular meeting to accept new members, that was apparently only for members to attend. In my mind, this is a great way for outsiders to see those who become part of the church. We want our practices open, and observable, in large part because we want to show Christ on display in our lives as often as possible (assuming He is).

When I got home, I read through their constitution carefully, and found the segment about membership where the church has a right to reject the withdrawal of membership for a number of reasons, not all of them linked to sins. That withdrawal of membership is conditioned upon consent of the elders.

I did more research and found this is a common function of 9marks churches which push heavily for membership, and many of those churches have numerous reports of the abuses. I can't accept more restrictive clauses for church constitutions where you trust that elders granted authority don't abuse it, but that pre-supposed evident trustability in specific people. Simply joining a church, and you pledge to submit generally.... while it may not be abused, it increases the potential for abuse.

Rebecca liked the church, I did too, but I didn't not think it would be wise staying. That covenant read much more like a legal document. HBC's and another I read were refreshingly less restrict. And even at HBC, we saw what was properly abuse.

I don't like how church membership is done, principally because I think it attempts to do with numbers and outward behavior what we really want in terms of substance, and the way we do it simply isn't geared to producing the substance. It isn't necessarily wrong when done. If you're already "there", the membership process is fine. But if you're not "there", the way we prioritize membership can take you further away.

Church Hunting: A R Church

ARC

We decided to try the Mark Dever church, Capital Baptist, that so many at HBC spoke about as a good alternative. But frankly, it's about as far away as Hope was, and with our myriad reasons, going to that church would mean we would be an uninvolved as before, which would have been the principal reason we would leave Hope, had the fun of 2017 not happened which pushed us out.

However, late leaving our house, we reached a decision point where we either cross the river to Capital Hill, deal with parking, and arrive late, or go to the nearby ARC, which was also on my list. So we went to ARC.

I liked this church. Very informal. They meet in a giant High School auditorium. I had heard the pastor online and he seemed very solid. Now, this is a black church, and I'm white. I was definitely a minority (but not the only white face by far). Still, I felt comfortable. It didn't have the chaos my friends tell me reigns in "the Black Church" (at least that's what my African American friends keep calling it as a general group of churches). Unfortunately, another guest speaker (who spoke well). But the senior pastor was there and spoke a lot about several programs they were doing, things to help the community.

First, I was impressed. Yes, it's not in a wonderful area of town, yes, I'm a minority white face, yes, statistically I have a higher chance of being mugged on my way to the car. But this church had a freshness, a life to it. I loved singing the old hymns with them. There was energy. I liked that they had a sense of mission in their community. I liked that they are engaged in job training, practical things, and that when they called for volunteers for this or that, it is practical, aimed at practically impacting lives, but doing it clearly in Christ's name. I expect a number of people come into the church having experience kindness from them. And they're not small. I liked that for such a huge size, the church felt poor, drawn from a poorer segment of the community. Shared inconvenience, and I'm not sure any minded, and I really believe that brings people together. And the greeters were chatty and engaging and they seemed to genuinely like speaking to us. Now one old black sister confided something in Rebecca (expecting Rebecca would agree), judgmental, I forget what, that really offended her, but it was also raw and honest. After the years, it felt refreshing to me to not to have to wonder what people are thinking.

But there were also red flags too, that reminded me that I was a foreigner. The visiting (white) preacher, preached a LOT about justice. He knew his audience. That word was repeated again and again and I couldn't shake the feeling that if you replaced the word "justice" with "kindness" and "Christian charity" (behavior, not money) it would have fit better. When you label your desire for respect and kindness and justice, you confer on it however the sense that it is fair, it is owed, and you strip out of it the component of love. But I get the sense this is exactly how this community thinks of what they want and hope for. They call it justice, wanting people to treat them decently and kindly.

The real lack of kindnesses to them, care for them, is processed as an injustice, instead of being the default condition of humanity where we have to regularly teach people to be kind and loving to one another where it is foreign to sinners and simply manifests itself, inconsistently and in a myriad of ways.

I would prefer to love someone, and it be recognized as love, than a function of justice. Because it's not. And we should encourage others to love because it reflects God's image, rather than appealing to some sense of fairness.

Subsequent controversies that the senior pastor seems to have gotten himself into confirm a sad impression that the church has a racist twist to it. I'd be just on the other side this time. Still, I think I probably could live with it. I proposed going back. Rebecca looked at the area and was very uncomfortable. Having gone to church, growing up, in a part of Los Angeles that was very sketchy (many brethren had their cars broken into), I didn't feel so out of place. But I understand. And my risk sensor needs general tuning in my life anyway.

Still, sad, because I really liked that church. While they were calling for volunteers, my mind was racing, processing "well, I could do that" and "I like to do that". I felt alive thinking about what I could be doing to fit this good need and purpose. That doesn't happen often. My general struggle is believing there are many places my talent my be useful but thus far, I'm only useful at home and work.

And the teaching appears otherwise very solid, even exceptional. The strongest by far in this area, with the possible exception of its parent. I've listened to a number of their sermons online.

But we wouldn't be able to do it, be a real part of the life of the group, just as a function of the distance.

And that excluded Capital Hill Baptist as well for the same reason.

Church Hunting: F C Church

FCC

This is a bit unusual since, after visiting and deciding I didn't want to go back, that is likely what we will do. I think the pastor is an excellent teacher, and by and large many of the fundamentals seem solid and we are not yet settled.

I visited once, by myself. The visiting speaker was a missionary, preaching on missions, and it was powerful. But this church is big, felt impersonal, felt polished (in the corporate sense). Lots of process, greeters here, welcome desk there. But I felt very anonymous in the crowd. It felt like the sort of place where people go, as consumers, to be served, rather than hoping to be part of a family and common worship of the Almighty God and His redeeming Son.

The second time, we went as a family. The visiting speaker preached very strongly. But same effect, that we could go in and come out without anyone noticing. It's the sort of church where you're not needed. Where you must plug in. Right or wrong, this is the feeling. We left without speaking to anyone, but were caught by a dad from our school who raced out to give us a little gift bag. I like this guy. Very soft-spoken, sweet father. Very likable. His kids were disappointed hearing that ours were there but they hadn't seen them.

The gesture was nice, but I have a poor feeling about gift bags. They had a CD or a sermon (good) and a coffee mug with the name of the church. It's kitch, branded... stuff. It's giving coffee machines at banks for your first transaction. It's not why we're there. Maybe it works on some people. But I felt worse, like people hope a gift bag can change whether people come.

Strip it all away! Take out the traditions, the rituals, the welcome desks... get rid of it all! Boil it down to a handful of simple things, teachings, behaviors. Let this be a place of genuine worship (no performances, no worship bands, etc.) and motivated people will come. At least I will.

The last memory, very strong, was that the "worship band" that sang (they rotate), was off key (I can live with that), did a lot of modern, repetitive songs (not a fan), but most tellingly, no one in the congregation was singing with them (what's the point?). That lack of song, that was hard.