Week 4: Culture and Ethnocentrism: 4G/2 Kings Signature Worksheets

Devotions:

1)


2)Pop quiz:
Give a quick, gut-instinct, first response answer; filling in the blanks for these two sentences:

1. "In England, they drive on the __________ side of the road."
2. "Boy, you can sure tell _________ is at work in the secular world nowadays; all you have to do is look around!

• 3)"Israel is on the continent of __________."
• 4)How many of you are in a cross-cultural marriage? ___

 Click here to see my suggested "rght answers."  More later in class.

--------------------

4G Night:  4 G words related to tonight's topic of culture/ethnocentrism:

"Guy" Nainan
Gaithers
Gathes of Hell
Gethsemane  (we ran out of time on this...will do next week)

------------
"Culture is:
 a way of thinking, feeling, valuing or acting
 by one or more persons."

"What is culture?

The formation of attention."

-Simone Weil, "Writings," p. 19;

"All divine revelation
 is culturally mediated."
-Leonard Sweet, "Aqua Church 2.0," p.. 67...context


Remember the BICULTURAL comedian, "What race is that guy?"  "Guy" Dan Nainan

"Gaithers on Crack": ----------
-----------------

Matthew  16...cf last week we noted a parallel passage in mt 18:

Here's the "hell" video below..This will help during the  "Gates of Hell" passage in Matthew 16.  As you have time, keep comparing the Matt. 16 and 18 passages below, and ask questions about what certain items mean ("gates of hell,"  "bind and loose," etc.).  Use some three worlds methods to ask questions of the text.

(Who's Going to Hell? from D Y on Vimeo.)

----(more about Joe Wong --including full routine::Who The Hell Is Joe Wong?_

Matthew 16: 13-20 :When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it. I will give you, Peter,  the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you, Peter, bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”  Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

--------------------------

  Matthew 18:15-19 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’^[ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
    “Truly I tell you, whatever you  [all of you]  bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you   [all of you]  loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
    “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.  For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them

Three reasons why understanding chapters 14-18

can't be fully grasped without realizing "THE RABBI FACTOR":

• -what do "gates of hell" and "on this rock mean"?(see VanDer Laan video)
• -what do "keys of Kingdom of heaven" and  "binding and loosing" mean ? (see below)
• -Jesus revisits the Bread/Economic testation big time in this section (see below)

SPEAKING OF HELL...(:

HERE'S SOME HELP ON THE MATTHEW CHAPTERS 16 AND 18 DISCUSSION:

1)HERE IS THE SLIDESHOW SUMMARY OF THE  VANDER LANN VIDEO WE'LL SHOW, "GATES OF HELL":

 

GATES OF HELL

by Ray Van Der Laan:

City of Pagans

Caesarea Philippi, which stood in a lush area near the foot of Mount Hermon, was a city dominated by immoral activities and pagan worship.

Caesarea Philippi stood only twenty-five miles from the religious communities of Galilee. But the city's religious practices were vastly different from those of the nearby Jewish towns.

In Old Testament times, the northeastern area of Israel became a center for Baal worship. In the nearby city of Dan, Israelite king Jeroboam built the high place that angered God and eventually led the Israelites to worship false gods. Eventually, worship of the baals was replaced with worship of Greek fertility gods.

Caesarea Philippi, which stood in a lush area near the foot of Mount Hermon, became the religious center for worship of the Greek god, Pan. The Greeks named the city Panias in his honor.

Years later, when Romans conquered the territory, Herod Philip rebuilt the city and named it after himself. But Caesarea Philippi continued to focus on worship of Greek gods. In the cliff that stood above the city, local people built shrines and temples to Pan.

Interestingly, Jesus chose to deliver a sort of "graduation speech" to his disciples at Caesarea Philippi. In that pagan setting, he encouraged his disciples to build a church that would overcome the worst evils.

The Gates of Hell

To the pagan mind, the cave at Caesarea Philippi created a gate to the underworld, where fertility gods lived during the winter. They committed detestable acts to worship these false gods.

Caesarea Philippi's location was especially unique because it stood at the base of a cliff where spring water flowed. At one time, the water ran directly from the mouth of a cave set in the bottom of the cliff.

The pagans of Jesus' day commonly believed that their fertility gods lived in the underworld during the winter and returned to earth each spring. They saw water as a symbol of the underworld and thought that their gods traveled to and from that world through caves.

To the pagan mind, then, the cave and spring water at Caesarea Philippi created a gate to the underworld. They believed that their city was literally at the gates of the underworld—the gates of hell. In order to entice the return of their god, Pan, each year, the people of Caesarea Philippi engaged in horrible deeds, including prostitution and sexual interaction between humans and goats.

When Jesus brought his disciples to the area, they must have been shocked. Caesarea Philippi was like a red-light district in their world and devout Jews would have avoided any contact with the despicable acts committed there.

It was a city of people eagerly knocking on the doors of hell.

Jesus' Challenge

Jesus presented a clear challenge with his words at Caesarea Philippi: He didn't want his followers hiding from evil: He wanted them to storm the gates of hell.

Standing near the pagan temples of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples "Who do you say that I am?" Peter boldly replied, "You are the Son of the living God." The disciples were probably stirred by the contrast between Jesus, the true and living God, and the false hopes of the pagans who trusted in "dead" gods.

Jesus continued, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (see Matt. 16:13-20).

Though Christian traditions debate the theological meaning of those words, it seems clear that Jesus? words also had symbolic meaning. His church would be built on the "rock" of Caesarea Philippi—a rock literally filled with niches for pagan idols, where ungodly values dominated.

Gates were defensive structures in the ancient world. By saying that the gates of hell would not overcome, Jesus suggested that those gates were going to be attacked.

Standing as they were at a literal "Gate of Hades," the disciples may have been overwhelmed by Jesus' challenge. They had studied under their rabbi for several years, and now he was commissioning them to a huge task: to attack evil, and to build the church on the very places that were most filled with moral corruption.

Jesus presented a clear challenge with his words at Caesarea Philippi: He didn't want his followers hiding from evil: He wanted them to storm the gates of hell.

Not Ashamed

Jesus' followers cannot successfully confront evil when we are embarrassed about our faith.

After Jesus spoke to his disciples about storming the gates of hell, he also gave them another word of caution: "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory" (Luke 9:26).

Jesus knew that his followers would face ridicule and anger as they tried to confront evil. And his words came as a sharp challenge: no matter how fierce the resistance, his followers should never hide their faith in God.

Jesus taught with passion, even when bystanders may have thought him a fool. And at Caesarea Philippi, he challenged everyone within hearing: "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very soul?" (v. 25).

In a city filled with false idols, Jesus asked his followers to commit to the one true God. While false gods promised prosperity and happiness, they would ultimately fail to deliver. Jesus didn't promise an easy life, but he delivered on the promise of salvation;the only kind of prosperity that really matters.

Today, Christians must heed the words of our Rabbi, especially when we are tempted to hide our faith because of embarrassment or fear. Our world is filled with those who have "gained the world" but lost their souls. If we hide our faith, they may never find the salvation they need.
 

On the offense

As we listen to Jesus' challenge today, we as Christians should ask ourselves the important question: When it comes to the battle against evil, are we on defense or offense?

In a culture that embraces diversity, it is offensive to suggest that there are certain truths that apply to everyone. Pointing out sin isn't popular and many Christians are labeled as "intolerant" for refusing to accept certain behaviors and ideas.

Unfortunately, many people have embraced a distorted Christianity that tries to be "politically correct." They don't want to offend anyone, so they accept sin rather than confronting it. Ultimately, their words of "love" ring empty because they accept sins that ruin people's lives.

Other Christians just try to avoid sinful culture altogether. They have been taught to go on the defense—to hide in their churches, schools, and homes and to shut the door on the evil influences of culture.

But Jesus challenged his followers to be on the offense—to proclaim the truth without shame.

Our schools and churches should become staging areas rather than fortresses; places that equip God's people to confront a sinful world instead of hiding from it. Jesus knows that the pagan world will resist, but he challenges us to go there anyway, and to build his church in those very places that are most morally decayed.

As we listen to Jesus' challenge today, we as Christians should ask ourselves the important question: Are we on defense or offense?

-Ray Van Der Laan, link

-----------------------

HERE ARE SOME MORE NOTES ON IT. 
>>HOW DOES IT HELP YOU INTERPRET THE PASSAGE?

2)ROB BELL'S DISCUSSION OF THE BIBLE AND BINDING AND LOOSING

SHOULD BE

READ, WRESTLED AND RECKONED WITH; ESPECIALLY SINCE IT DEALS WITH THE RABBINIC ORIGIN OF THE PHRASE.

IT'S THE "YOKE" CHAPTER OF "VELVET ELVIS"..
 READ IT, PAGES 40-69 HERE.

RELATED:

• AN ANABAPTIST RESPONSE
• AN UNOFFOCIAL STUDY GUIDE TO BELL.

>>HOW DOES THIS HELP YOU INTERPRET THE PASSAGE?

----------------

Responding to the "Gates of Hell" video, and challenging the "confronting secular culture" idea:

1)How about "The Day Metallica Came to Church":

related videos

2) What if Christians are to NOT judge non-Christians and JUDGE fellow Christians?:

^{1 corinthians 5:}
 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?¹³ God will judge those outside. 

Question: This weekend I happened to stumble on a Bible verse that I had never heard anybody speak on: 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. Paul has just been telling the church of Corinth to have nothing to do with one of their church members who was married to his own mother (how sick is that!). Anyway, then he goes on to say that he doesn't want us judging those that don't know Christ, and he doesn't want us pulling away from them. He seems to sternly "rebuke" that thought. We are to have contact, and be friends with nonchristians. It's the Christians that are blatantly not walking with God that we should disassociate ourselves from. On the one hand, I'm happy about this. Yes, I get to hang out with non-Christians, sinners, whatever, and know that it is a biblical thing. But what about a friend who has been walking with Christ and is in major sin? Do I plain reject them, just when they need me most to kick their butt? I don't know. Thoughts are welcome! 

Answer: Let me begin by answering the crucial question you pose at the end of your letter, and then I'll angle back into your question again by dealing with some of the great insights you raised earlier, and some of the very overlooked, even shockingly ignored Scriptures that relate and inform. No, you do NOT "just plain reject a friend who has been walking with Christ, but is in major sin, just when they need (you) most to kick their butt." I don't think one can make a scriptural case for "just plain rejecting" a Christian friend, even if we do, in love, "just plain reject" their sin and their rebelliousness. You wouldn't really love your friend if 1)you didn't continue to be friends 2)you didn't call him/her to deal with their sin. 

When Paul asks that the Corinthians not "associate" with sexually immoral people, greedy, idolaters, slanderers, drunkards or swindlers, two grammatical question must be wrestled with. First of all, it would seem rare or (technically) impossible from Paul's perspective that a true Christian could actually BE, by nature, a sexually immoral person, an idolater, etc. I know we as true believers do fall into sins of sexual immorality, greed, and the others mentioned. sometimes severely so. But we do not consistently live there; we are not by nature a "pure" greedy person, for example...we are not consistently,100 percent, without any remorse, greedy 24 hours a day. If that were the case we would not be Christians by the Bible's own definition. A key passage for grasping this is found just a few verses ahead of the scripture you raised. I Corinthians 6:9-11: "Don't you know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor greedy, nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God." Now he does NOT say that a Christian who has fallen into one or more of these sins, even in a major way, will not make it to heaven. He does not say that an act of adultery, for example, will keep a believer out of the Kingdom. And when one remember Jesus equating lust with adultery, none of us could make it into the Kingdom on such a basis! Anyway, after listing these sinful lifestyles, Paul goes on: "And that is what some of you WERE!." Note: they are NOT those persons or lifestyles anymore. Fundamental to Paul's theology, is that believers are no longer sinners, adulterers, homosexuals, etc BY NATURE, even if we fall into some of these sins. We are not fundamentally... by nature... sinners anymore: on the contrary we are, according to v. 11, "washed, sanctified and justified." We are now to be considered "saints." Now hang on a minute, I hear that objection coming. The problem is that we have greatly misunderstood what the Bible means by "saint." One does not have to be dead or Catholic, or perfect to be a saint. One only has to be a biblically-defined Christian. And that means that we have a new nature, given us by Christ! If you really wonder if you are a saint, consider that Paul even calls those far less than perfect Christians in First and Second Californians..um, excuse me. Corinthians ( 1 Cor 1:2; 2:1), saints! 

And don't read me as soft on sin. I sincerely believe we saints sin in thought, word and deed. I am simply making the case that the Word treats us as " saints who sometimes sin,", not "sinners who are sometimes saints.". It's just that God nowhere calls us sinners by nature anymore; "sinner" is a word used exclusively for those intentionally outside Christ and the church. That doesn't make us perfect, but it does make us perfectly forgiven. That doesn't make "them" terrible; on the contrary, they are terribly in need of Christ. This is not simply semantics, and is no small matter. It is in fact, THE interpretive key to understanding who and Whose we are. The entire message of Paul, and in essence the entire New Testament, can be microcosmically summarized as "Become what you already are." That is, actualize, act on, and act out all that Christ and the new identity and power He has already imparted and implanted in you have given you. Check out two amazing and life-changing Scriptures: Philippians 3:14, " Let us live up to what we have already attained" and 2 Peter 1:3, "We have already been given everything we need for life and godliness." If we only had these two verses and no others, and we grappled and grasped all that they implied, we would be far less impotent spiritually as individuals and churches. On this topic, and as good practical and prophetic help on how to prayerfully apply these tremendous truths, I recommend many of the available books by Neil Anderson. 

Back to the original Scripture and context. We must also ask what does "associate" mean (1 Cor, 5:, 9 and 11)? Does it imply no contact whatsoever? No. The Greek word used literally denotes something like "mix together." It may indeed mean temporary "banning" from the gathered church, but then only if the sin is serious, and seriously not dealt with by the "saint" so accused, and even then only as a last resort as a means of "handing him over to Satan" (study carefully the two Scriptures were this fascinating phrase is used and prescribed: 1 Cor 5:5 and 1 Tim 1:20) with the intent that tough love might be the "butt-kicking" that eventually kicks them back to Christ and the fullness of Christ's fellowship. Note that in 2 Thess. 3:14, "disassociating" from gossips, which I read in the context of Scripture and early church history as disassociating them from the gathered church, not from individual relationships, is only after a second chance and as a last resort, and with the intent of restoration. 
However, I do not want to sound as if I am condoning intentional sin. As St. Paul would protest, "May it never be!" . But I deeply believe Jesus and Paul modeled for us a lifestyle of seeking restoration, and return of the prodigal. However, those who continue defiantly in what you call " major sin" leave us, (and God, by the way, to a limited extent) with no option but to move into a tough love position of even withdrawing from them, so as we are not corrupted or deceived (obviously, this is not possible for God), and so that they are pushed toward restoration through tasting the futility of being "handed over to Satan." And the tenor of Corinthians is clear: some who call themselves believers in all honesty not only flirt with, but live with flagrant sin. The challenge here, to adapt the cliché we usually use to a slightly different form in light of our earlier discussion, "love the SAINT, and not the sin." 
As a kind of aside to you personally (the one who asked this fine question), because of the person you and I are both aware of, we both know the terrible and inappropriate "judgment" that has fallen on him. This is a tragic example of how NOT to judge fellow believers. The word "prejudice" literally means to pre-judge; that is judge before you have all the information. We are of course, in Corinthians and in Jesus (By the way, Why do we usually only hear the first half of Jesus' quote: "Do not judge..", when He finished the thought with.."...except in the same measure you are willing to be judged yourself.{Matt. 7:1}) called to "judge" fellow Christians, but only from a prayerful, careful and mercy-based motivation. "Mercy," James offers in 2:13 of the book by his name, "triumphs over judgment." This perfect and delicate balance of confronting believers in sin is caught by Jesus who says both "Neither do I condemn you" as well as "Go and sin no more." 

So in conclusion, Paul would assume that your theoretical (?) "Christian who is blatantly not walking with God" would be a rarity, and in its purest form , impossible. But because many who have made sincere commitments to Jesus seem to somehow fall into not only the more "ordinary" and "expected" ditches of sin, but into willful and bold sin, we must, like Jesus, love them enough to pursue them, "kick their butt" and maybe even trust God, ourselves and them enough to let them go, ideally only for a season (because God says that's the duration of sin's pleasures anyway) of heartbreaking (for us, God and them) heart-searching which will call them back into the fullness of all Jesus has to offer. 
I agree with you, though obviously much of the organized church seems to have a hard time believing and practicing it, that we are to naturally and intentionally "hang out" with "sinners." Who would argue that Jesus did not? And we are to refrain from judging them. That doesn't necessitate that we do all the things they do, or we don't express our concerns for the wholeness in this life, and security in the next. But we are to unconditionally love, just as the Unconditional Lover first loved us. How else will they come to know this Love who loves us enough to call and make us saints, and (to risk what some might term a sacrilegious phrase attributed to Jesus. sorry) love us enough to "kick our butts" as needed? 

Reminder: are you a saint?

What do you remember from class?  Read the 2nd paragraph of the article above again.

Ashley, are you a saint?  Please answer in the comments section below.

---

We did in class some discussion of the 2 Kings 5 alternative for sign-ature assignment.

In class, we did in groups the  Three World worksheets from your student guide on 2 Kings 5.

So if you missed, be sure to do them on your own and bring next week for credit,

Remember, we added a page at top of website called "2 Kings help"..including children's plays.

Remember: you may want to include the whole chapter (2 Kings 5) in your paper, and not stop at verse 19a as syllabus says.,

We also showed in class the NT Wright video on Philemon (which is also on the "Philemon help" page at top,

Most found it very helpful.  Watch it by clicking here.

-

NO HOMEWORK FOR NEXT WEEK (ignore all syllabus homework) SO YOU CAN FOCUS  (IF YOU LIKE) ON WRITING A DRAFT OF YOUR SIGNATURE PAPER FOR ME TO LOOK AT NEXT WEEK,

5 Pts exta credit homework: write a 1-2 page summary of the BBC (Bethlehem Bible College) page linked at top of site.  Focus on Israel/Palestine.

Quiz next week will look exactly like this
(except class definitions and symbols will be included)

a)Three Worlds  (definition/examples see Week  1 post )
b)Text  (definition/examples see Week  1 post )
c)Sign (definition/examples see Week  1 post )
d)Bounded set (definition/examples see Week  1 post )
e)Centered set (definition/examples see Week  1 post )
f)Fuzzy set (definition/examples see Week  1 post )
g)Chiasm (definition/examples see Week  1 post )
h)Inclusio (n)  (definition/examples see Week  1 post )
i)Recurrence  (definition/examples see Week  1 post )
j)Venn it!  (definition/examples see Week  2 post )
k)Intertextuality/Hyperlinking  (definition/examples see Week  2 post )
l)Subversion of Empire  (definition/examples see Week 2 post )

--

EXTRA CREDIT PAGE: 

 a)Kingdom of God/heaven  (definition/examples see Week  3 )
b)Drop Down box   (definition/examples see Week  2 )
c)Six  degrees of separation  (definition/examples see Week  1 
d)aggregate   (definition/examples see Week  2 )
e)collectivity   (definition/examples see Week  2 )
f)generalization/particularization   (definition/examples see Week  2 )
g)units   (definition/examples see Week  3 )
h)double paste    (definition/examples see Week  4 below )
i)hemistiche/ellipsis    (definition/examples see Week  4 below )
j)intercalation/sandwiching    (definition/examples see Week  4 below)
j)Context is Everything    (definition/examples see Week  4below )
k)Create your own sign    (definition/examples see Week  4 below)
-------



New signs tonight


g)units  

It is helpful to  discern and chart out and envison large sections.."divisions" of a biblical book.  This helps us see large themes better that chapter and verse divisions (which were not prat of the original text).

For example, in Matt 4:17, we read "From this time on, Jesus preached, 'Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is here.."

In Matt 16:21, we catch a similar phrase: "From this time on, Jesus began to prepare his disciples for his death.."

This is a structural way of saying that all the content between 4:17 and 16:21 is about the Kingdom.  It's a "division" (large section) of the book. 
h)double paste 
This represents hitting the "CONTROL V" button, "pasting" two scriptures together, or "splicing" two scriptures into one new one.  Classic example is Jesus in the temple tantrum.
ISAIAH 56:6-8 + JEREMIAH 7:11=MARK 11:16   
i)hemistiche/ellipsis   

Biblical verses of two or more parallel hemistiches will very often omit a word, a term or an idea already found in a previous hemistich (less common is the omission of content in the first hemistich).  The reader is of course supposed to fill in the blank on her own.  In other words, the first hemistich (or the fuller hemistich) is integral to one’s understanding of the deficient hemistiches in the same verse. This drawing of syllogisms or analogies between parallel hemistiches is of course one of the basic tools used in the analysis of biblical poetry-one used unconsciously by most readers of the Bible.  From "From the verse to the complete work"

I have always felt that Mark's fuller quotation of Jesus ( "house of prayer for all nations")
was an intentional emphasis for many and multiplex reasons, and that (thus) the mere quotation of "house of prayer" (without for all nations) in Matthew and Luke (compare all four gospel accounts here) made it all the more emphasized and underlined... conspicuous by its absence.

Of course in Matthew's overarching Jewish context and audience, all the more need to emphasize
the inclusivity of the invitation.

Of course in Matthew's overarching Jewish context and audience, all the more need to emphasize
the inclusivity of the invitation.


j)intercalation/sandwiching  

Intercalation" is a "sandwiching" technique. where a story/theme is told/repeated at the beginning and ened of a section, suggesting that if a different story appears in between, it too is related thematically.  this outline of Mark 11:

CURSING OF FIG FREE

CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE

CURSING OF THE FIG TREE

We'll  discuss how the cursing of the fig tree was Jesus' commentary of nationalism/racism/prejudice, because fig trees are often a symbol of national Israel.  That the fig  tree cursing story is "cut in  two" by the inserting/"intercalating" of the temple cleansing, suggested that Jesus action in the temple was also commentary on prejuidice...which become more obvious when we realize the moneychangers and dovesellers are set up in the "court of the Gentiles," which kept the temple from being a "house of prayer FOR ALL NATIONS (GENTILES).

This theme becomes even more clear when we note that Jesus  statement was a quote from Isaiah 56:68, and the context there (of course) is against prejudice in the temple.

When a text reference is made to another text/Scripture, this is called INTERTEXTUALITY.

Summary:

Most think Jesus' "temple tantrum" was due to his being ticked off about folks "selling stuff in church.". But he didn't say "Quit selling stuff in church" , but "My house shall be a house of prayer for all nations," quoting Is 56:6-8, whose context is all about letting foreigners and outcasts have a place..hmmm. He was likely upset that not that Dovesellers and money changers were doing business selling and changing , but that they were doing so in the "outer court,"  (AKA the "Court of the GENTILES"), the only  place where "foreigners" could have a pew at "attend church." They were making the temple area "a den of thieves" not (just) by overcharging for doves and currency exchange, but by robbing folks..'all nations'... of a place to pray..and to "access access" to God.

Could it be that Jesus' temple anger was targeted at racism/prejudice more than (instead of) commercialism? 

Maybe read this short article I wrote on the topic for Salt Fresno Magazine:

“Temple Tantrums For All Nations"

j)Context is Everything   
Simply a motto for reading the Bible..or any text. 
k)Create your own sign    
Sometimes it will be most helpful to create your won sign...like you will for the sign-ature paper