Text & Context 2: Authorial Givens

Text & Context #2: Authorial Givens

We continue our thoughts on Texts & Contexts with a brief discussion of the importance of context. Context can signify several different things and all are necessary for a proper interpretation of not only Scripture but most any piece of literature. Because of the "sloppiness" of the term context some linguists distinguish between cotext and context. The word cotext would refer to the sentences, paragraphs and chapter surrounding the "text" under consideration. These linguists then use the term context to refer specifically to the sociological and historical setting of the text. It is traditional to talk of "literary" context and "historical" context but I like the more precise language of cotext and context and shall be using that in his mini-essay. Thus context refers to the sociological and historical situation of the writer and text produced. It is not important that you adopt this terminology rather what is important is that we take seriously what these terms represent. 

It should be evident that context is a matter of paramount importance. Unfortunately this is not always the case for we often come to the biblical text and simply read our contemporary ideas back into the text. This is actually unfair to two people: the author and the reader. It is not "common" sense to read a text that is at minimum two thousand years old in dead languages and an alien culture as if it was written yesterday from Nashville, Tennessee.

The "Givens" of Context

Every author, when he or she, writes a text makes lots of assumptions. She will assume a common framework in reference to accepted usages of words, cultural allusions, and the like. The author takes these common assumptions about the world as GIVENS. If the author had to explain every metaphor, historical allusion or figure of speech, her piece would be clumsy, wordy and obtuse . . . and no one would read it. It is these GIVENS of context that a contemporary author ASSUMES on the part of his readers are the very things that are LOST on non-contemporary readers. 

GIVENS of a text is natural and it is something we experience everyday. E.D. Hirsch, writing not about ancient books but contemporary newspapers and discourse, calls this simply cultural literacy. Cultural literacy is the common "background information" that the "comprehending reader must bring to the text" in order for understanding to take place (Cultural Literacy, pp. 13-14).

Hirsch illustrates his point beautifully with a series of excerpts from the Washington Post.

"A federal appeals panel today upheld an order barring foreclosure on a Missouri farm, saying the U.S. Agriculture Secretary John R. Block has reneged on his responsibilities to some debt ridden farmers. The appeals panel directed the USDA to create a system of processing loan deferments and of publicizing them as it said Congress had intended. The panel said that it is the responsibility of the agricultural secretary to carry out this intent 'not as a private banker, but as a public broker."

This passage, in a common newspaper, is loaded with "givens" on the part of the author. What is a foreclosure? What is a federal appeals panel? Where is Missouri and what about Missouri is relevant to this article? Why are farmers debt ridden? What is the USDA? What is a public broker? None of these "givens" would make any sense to even a chronologically contemporary person living in China.  For the citizen of that culture to grasp even that paragraph he or she would absolutely be required to investigate the social setting of Missouri and the Federal government.  If we would expect this of a contemporary situation how can we think that less effort may be required of a text that is two thousand years old? 

There is simply a "ton" of information that authors take for granted . . . givens on the part of the readership. That information "fills in the blanks." (And I have just used two idioms (i.e. "ton" and "fill in the blanks" that I assume the reader will readily grasp). 

Givens, this assumed information, is not specialized information. It is not information that only select individuals from certain fields would recognize. Rather this information is part of the common knowledge base of the readership. One can have a "common" knowledge of the USDA without having to write an encyclopedia article about it. The common knowledge is that folks recognize it, know what it means, and know why it is important. But it is that "common knowledge" that a person living in Hong Kong would simply miss!

I want to stress, once again, that assumed knowledge is (at the time of the author!) the common knowledge of most any commonly educated Joe Cool walking down the street. The problem for readers of the Bible is that those GIVENS of the text are lost . . . without work on our part.

I heard Gordon Fee say "today's scholar could literally spend the rest of his life doing nothing but reading the classics, the Apocrypha, learning Greco-Roman legends, social customs and still not know what the average Joe Blow did walking the streets of Corinth in A.D. 54!!" He said it is sort of ironic that "we supposed to be scholars and yet still would not have a high school education in if we actually LIVED in the Roman world." These things are simply "given."

I am convinced that if we take the Bible seriously then we will in fact take its context seriously. The Apostle Paul, like the writer of the newspaper article quoted above, simply assumes a great deal . . . quite legitimately . . . on the part of his contemporary readers. Those givens are simply lost to us and can only be recovered through immersion in Paul's world. 

A thorough knowledge of the Hebrew Bible is essential filling in the blanks of Paul's givens. When I say "thorough" I mean just that too. But most Jews did not read Hebrew but Greek thus encountered the Bible in the Septuagint. If a person knows Greek it is a wise thing to spend a great deal of time in the Septuagint (which can also be read in English translation btw). The Dead Sea Scrolls show us that the Jews read, wrote and studied all manner of books beside the Bible. Traditions about the Maccabees, Greek theater/festivals and many other things simply "fill the air." This information becomes part of the givens . . . that is "things that are in the air." The Jews and Greeks had a certain "Cultural Literacy" as much as Hirsch thinks Americans should. Our task as modern readers is to simply be as "culturally literate" as the average Joe Blow going down the street . . . we will be amazed at how often this fills in the blanks of the biblical text. 

Any reader of the NT then should have a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew Bible. They should know the legends of the Maccabean martyrs. They should have a working knowledge of the Apocrypha (especially Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, the additional legends regarding Daniel and I mentioned the Maccabees independently). Josephus is a valuable tool for understanding some of the political givens in the Gospels. First Enoch is an important text too. All of these writings, save Josephus, are in one way or another assumed on the part of NT authors and do in fact allude to them and (at times) quote them. This hopefully does not seem like a lot of work, it does have its rewards. Our aim is simply to be able to read the NT like any average Roman would have.

BTW, Hirsch's book Cultural Literacy is worth reading. Everett Ferguson's book "Backgrounds to Early Christianity" is a beginning point. And the Apocrypha is available in an excellent translation through the NRSV.

Read More

Text & Context 1: Thoughts on Exegesis & Interpretation

The off and on series titled "Text & Context" will be focusing on one kind of biblical study. This is not the only kind a disciple will engage in but it is critical. In my book coauthored with John Mark Hicks, Kingdom Come, other approaches are also explored.

I recently read the following comment or question: "Why are they so eager to leave the Bible?" The question was written by a person of sincerity and integrity I would imagine. It was directed toward a group of folks who have come to a different understanding of a controversial subject than themselves. My own question is: Why must I assume that he or she or they are "leaving the Bible" when he/she/they disagree with me? What if he/she/they take the Bible with incredible seriousness. What if they really do care what the Bible says? What if they care just as much as I care ... and I know that I care what the Bible says.

The following series seeks to posit a few answers to my own questions. I have come to a radical conclusion for a person within the Stone-Campbell Movement. I have come to the conclusion that the Bible can be a difficult book to read and it can be a difficult book to interpret. I have come also to the conclusion that it often borders on dishonesty to say that it is not. The paragraphs below are an introduction to this idea.

While gazing at the wall I conceived of a new tact I want to take: I have decided to do a series of posts that address the issues of exegesis and hermeneutics of the biblical text. Thus I will be doing a series of posts (of varying length) that cover topics such as the principles of word studies (including the use and abuse of such); historical and cultural backgrounds; linguistic and translation issues; sociological issues regarding interpretation and from time to time I will focus these interpretive guns on specific texts to illustrate the value of exegesis. It is my hope that these mini-"essays" will be of help to all who read the Bible . . . but especially to those who teach and preach it. 

As a beginning teaser, and to demonstrate that we often need to be discriminating readers of the text paying careful attention to the contexts of the words inspired by the Spirit, I offer the various shades of meaning of the word "means:

1. "You never say what you mean."

2. "I did not mean to insult you."

3. "What do you mean by 'rationalization?"

4. "She means well."

5. "This means war."

6. "The root meaning of 'holy' is 'separate.'"

Here we have a word ("mean") that is used in six different senses, all of which are legitimate. This little exercise also quickly points to the fallacy that is so easily engaged in in word studies of declaring there is a "core" meaning to a word. Rather this exercise has easily shown that it is context that determines meaning. 

Sentences 3 and 4 both seem to indicate "intention," that is the intention of whoever produced the sentences. Sentence 5 points to "implication" and not the absurd suggestion that the word "this" literally means "war" (but in communication the meaning would be clearly understood). Sentence 6 involves some sort of clarification. Sentences 1 and 2 suggest that two people are aware of an intention to communicate for some reason it is not satisfactorily realized.

More to come . . .

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Ut omnes unum sint (John 17.21, Vulgate)

Read More

Rachael (Little Lamb) Nicole Valentine

Rachael (Little Lamb) Nicole Valentine

On Saturday it seemed like Rachael just had another cold or a virus. After all some stomach bug has been making the rounds here in the desert. By Tuesday it had become painfully obvious this was not a cold or a bug. Rachael was curled up on her bed, rocking back and forth and crying painfully.

Pamella took Rachael to the Doctor. We did not have one yet so she found a clinic on Tanque Verde Rd and pulled in. After a brief examination the doctor insisted we go to the emergency room at the Tucson Medical Center. We arrived at the ER around 4:30 pm and were there for a very long time. They did x-rays, blood work, urine samples and whatever else you can think of. Around 10 pm the decision was made to admit Rachael to the hospital but there were no rooms available so we had to stay in the ER. The decision was made that Pamella would take Talya home and I would remain in the ER with Rachael. During the night (at 1 am) Rachael got an ultrasound done. They pumped her little body with moriphin several times.

A surgeon showed up about 8 am on Wednesday. After more blood tests and more "consultation" the decision was made to take Rachael to the operation room. The doctors decided that Rachael was suffering from an inflamed appendix. But they were not positive. They wanted to "look" and see. We were not happy with this situation but decided to listen to the doctor anyway. We just wanted her not to be in any more pain.

I thought the night was bad. And believe me it was bad staying in "bed 22" in the ER. But the surgery was much harder than I expected. When they are about to put your little girl "under" that is not a good feeling ... if you have not experienced it you have no clue. I know because I had no clue until confronted with it. Seeing the doctor one hour and 22 minutes later coming down the hall with a smile on her face was one of the greatest things I have ever experienced.

They did operate on Rachael and removed her appendix. They also drained 150 mLs of fluid. As of now we do not know where all that fluid came from. But the doctor said that was a lot of fluid in the pelvic region in an eleven year old.

Right about lunch time today (Thursday), we wheeled Rachael out of the hospital and loaded her into the car. We drove home and put her on the couch where she promptly went to sleep. Later today she wanted to watch Pete's Dragon and I think we are out of the woods.

Through this ordeal Pamella has been a wonder woman. Talya has been concerned for her sister. And our church family at Palo Verde was great. We even had friends from Milwaukee praying and calling. There were even quite a few folks from Nashville praying.

Thank you, Abba Father, for being with Rachael. In the middle of the night when we did not know what was happening, I confess to be scared. You provided us Trisha, a wonderful nurse. She took care of Rachael in a loving way ... and that took care of me. Thank you, Father, for being with Rachael in the operation room when she was scared and giving her peace. Thank you, Father for watching over my little lamb ... she is most precious to me. Amen.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Communion with God & His Family

Communion With God and His Family

There are several themes that come together in my understanding of Communion or the Lord’s Supper. I believe the Hebrew Bible and the “New Testament” are vitally connected in its teachings regarding this meal. Thus I believe that the “NT” teaching regarding the Supper is to be interpreted against the background of the shalom (i.e. peace/fellowship) offerings and the meals of Jesus in the Gospels.

This meal has a vertical dimension tying us to God our Redeemer. This meal has a horizontal aspect that connects us to God’s Family. This meal has a backward feature linking us to God’s act at Golgotha. This meal has a forward outlook that pulls us into the eschaton and the promise of life in the Presence of our Lord. The word “communion” or “fellowship,” in my view, best ties all these phases of the Supper together. We experience none of these blessings alone rather they are “shared” in concert with the redeemed community. The common “mood” for all those threads in Scripture is one of abundant Joy. The Supper is not just one of these things rather it is all of them and we cannot ignore any of them. These four threads in the biblical teaching on the LS I believe need to be "restored" to our fellowship.

The Vertical Dimension

The Table is a moment of profound communion (i.e. fellowship) with God. This is precisely Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 10.16. The Table is holy because God is “there.” We share (have fellowship) the Table with God. This view makes no sense, though, if we do not accept the relation of the Supper with shalom meals of the Hebrew Bible. Yet these meals are the very basis of Paul’s reasoning (cf. 1 Cor. 10.18ff).

The great examples of these meals, as in Exodus 24.1-11, Leviticus 9 and 2 Chronicles 30 reveal what Paul has in mind. Because Sin, the barrier between man and God, has been removed through a Sacrifice (atonement) there can now be uninhibited fellowship. God’s Presence is real and not a simple trick of the mind or semantics. God’s Presence is as real as in Exodus 3 when God appeared to Moses. This is what we long for as redeemed people.

Having fellowship with God was a moment of great joy and celebration. Moses tells us, “when the people saw it [God’s glory appearing], they shouted for joy and fell facedown” (Lev. 9.24). We see Jesus continually acting out this principle in his life in the Gospels.

The Horizontal Aspect

God’s Table has never been solely about a private moment with the Lord. Even the “vertical” dimension of the Table was never experienced alone. God’s people can and do go for prayer walks, sit in trees, drive in cars and experience profound moments of communion with the God of grace. But these are not the Table. God has never intended the Table to be like this. Tables are meant for families.

As God set it up one could not offer a sacrifice without a group to fellowship with. The shalom sacrifice was eaten. Leviticus 7.16 tells us that 800 pounds of meat had to be eaten in two days! No human could do this alone. Thus friends and family gathered for a sacrifice and folks ate together.

The Passover is a good example of what I mean. This is truly a family meal. Jews did not, indeed could not, take the Passover alone. Jesus and his disciples were a family and celebrated this meal together. The meal bound a group of misfits together through an experience of God’s grace. They talked, ate, relaxed all in the context of the Table.

It is the failure of this horizontal aspect of the table that Paul reprimands the Corinthians for. In 1 Cor 11 the Corinthian church were importing pagan stratification into the society of the redeemed. Peter Lampe (in Interpretation) goes into these issues and sheds a flood of light onto this text and its context. The Corinthians did not realize that an experience of the Crucified Lord alters how we view and experience one another. As Lampe writes,

“The Corinthians, forgetting care for others, were interested solely in the vertical communion with the risen Lord. Paul, however says that one can only have a close relationship with the risen Lord . . . Christians are led to care for others, proclaiming Christ’s death in their existence”

The Corinthians thought the Table was only about their individual time with God. Paul says they are mistaken. One can only be at the Table with God if he or she came with a brother or a sister. It is precisely here where one’s understanding of 1 Cor 11. 29 comes in. I believe the entire context of chapter 11 makes it extremely unlikely that Paul is chastising these brethren and sisters for not being devotional enough. The problem was how they were treating their brothers and sisters. The phrase “of the Lord” (rather than simply “body”) was almost certainly not a part of the original. The phrase is missing from p46 (P stands for “papyri” and 46 stands for its number) which is the earliest witness we have to Greek text of 1 Corinthians (dates to about 200). The phrase is missing from the most important uncial manuscripts (Siniaticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and a host of others). This evidence, which is weighty, makes it very unlikely that Paul wrote the phrase “of the Lord” in v. 29. The call to “recognize” the body refers to the Body of Christ that is assembled at the Table which makes perfect sense in light of the problem the Corinthians were having at the Table.

Thus at the Table we celebrate together the vertical dimension that has been established through the sacrifice of Jesus upon the altar. Communion is now available with our Father and our Brother in a way that has never been experienced before.

The Backward Feature

The Lord’s Table also looks back and recalls the great works of God culminating in the cross and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus tells us to remember him. I do not believe this means only recalling six hours one Friday. We remember Jesus. But when we remember Jesus we also remember God’s work in Jesus. It is God’s victory in and through Jesus.

When we gather at his Table we recall the gift that brought us here. This backward glance is not a moment of despondency. It is not a moment of self-deprecation. The cross was not a moment of defeat for Jesus rather it was a moment of glorification. We recall this as his crowning moment in life (as John’s Gospel thinks of it). When we remember not only the cross but all of Jesus ministry . . . then we remember the depth of God’s love for us (even me!). The cross is the revelation of love (John 3.16; 1 John 3.16). At the Table I remember that, like the woman caught in adultery and the thief, I am not condemned! When we look backward we see reason to celebrate the victory of God.

Once again we need to remember the connection with the Hebrew Bible. The word “memorial” does not imply somber, solitude, sad, dour or anything of the sort. The Passover was a “memorial” as well and it was never a sad occasion or a private moment of introspection. The Passover was a mighty celebration held in honor of the Lord. The word “memorial” is associated with “rejoicing” in Scripture. Moses helps us understand this term,

“Also at your times of rejoicing – your appointed feasts and New Moon festivals – you are to sound the trumpets over your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, and they will be a memorial for you before your God. I am the LORD your God” (Num 10.10).

The Forward Outlook

By sitting at God’s Table we also look forward to the future. We truly experience the presence of the risen Christ at the Table but we also proclaim that his resurrection leads to a time when he will return. In the Supper we have a foretaste, a shadow if you will, of the gloriousness of what heaven will be like. At the Table all the saints of old are gathered in communion with us in anticipation of when we will literally sit at the great banquet in the eschaton. John gives us a glimpse of this “wedding supper of the Lamb” in Revelation 19.9.

There are many other things that tie the Table to the future as well but they are not at issue so I will leave them for the moment.

Summing Up:

I believe that God is always Present at his table. I believe the community of God is always present at the table. I believe that the Table is characterized by joy and gratitude. I do not believe the Table is an altar experience. I believe such a perspective is not rooted in Scripture but rather in doctrine that Christ is sacrificed again (medieval mass). The altar was and remains the cross. The cross allows us to sit at the Table with God ... a table rich and varied in what God intends it to be for his Family.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

My Life in (Secular) Song ...

My Life in (Secular) Song

My good friend and brother, Bobby Cohoon, has decided to make life interesting for a number of folks by forcing us to be creative. Bobby led the way by summarizing his life in a song and "tagged" me to do the same. I have thought about this (not long though) and what follows is my attempt to fulfill the request.

My life began with my birth in 1968 when the doctor told my parents You Can't Always Get What You Want (Rolling Stones). As I matured into the dating stage my motto became Ace Freely's I Am Trouble Walking but I was really a nice guy though many at the time thought I was Runnin with the Devil (Van Halen).

I came to a Crossroads (Cream) in my life and went to Bible College and was soon accused of fomenting a Revolution (Beatles) yet my teacher said I was Thick as a Brick (Jethro Tull). After being told to Come Sail Away (Styx) to a strange new sea in Florida; I spotted Pamella and thought Oh' Pretty Woman (Roy Orbison). She looked me over and said you're a Sharp Dressed Man (ZZ Top). Not wanting to be dishonest I confessed to being an Average Ordinary Guy (Joe Walsh).

Taking a risk Pamella and I married. Shortly after the honeymoon I did or said something really stupid so she warned me there would be No Sugar Tonight (Guess Who). But I looked her in the eye and whispered You're Still Beautiful to Me (Bryan Adams). We were a happy couple and soon bundles of joy arrived. But one day we could not find Rachael so we were desperately Callin All Angels (Train). We looked at Talya and just reflected that she was just a Sweet Child of Mine (Guns & Roses).

God led us into the ministry but he warned that many of the brothers have become Comfortably Numb (Pink Floyd). Being the wise sage he is, my dad exhorted me to Carry On My Wayward Son (Kansas). We lived in Mississippi for a few years but were unceremoniously chased out and Pamella encouraged me Don't Look Back (Boston). So we followed the Long and Winding Road (Beatles) to Milwaukee.

We truly loved the land of beer and cheese but one day the Cloud moved off to a distant land in the Saguaro Desert. So we packed the cars and simply Roll[ed] On Down the Highway (BTO). Out here in the desert I have decided to become a Paperback Writer (Beatles). Now our lives are filled with joy and love.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

My Wonderful Valentines

My Wonderful Valentines



I am a blessed and happy man. My Valentines are getting bigger ... bigger than the picture shows. But each is a gift of grace from the Lord to me. Thank you Pamella for being my wife. Thank you Rachael and Talya for making me a proud Daddy.

You are Valentines in deed not just name.

I Love You.
Bobby

Read More

Pardee Butler: An Amos in our Family Tree

Pardee Butler (1816-1888) is not a name often introduced to new students of the Stone-Campbell Movement. His name is not even mentioned in Earl West’s encyclopedic Search for the Ancient Order. He is overlooked by James North’s Union in Truth. He did not make the cut for Richard Hughes Reviving the Ancient Faith. His name appears James DeForest Murch’s Christians Only. We get a better introduction to Butler in Leroy Garrett’s Stone-Campbell Movement and David Edwin Harrell’s Quest for a Christian America. But for students who are often wondering what “use” is their history then including men like Butler is a step forward.

Butler’s story is fascinating and inspiring. His family was early converts to the reforming ways of Alexander Campbell. Pardee himself was baptized in 1835 and he desired to preach. He hoped to attend Bethany College but was never able to afford formal education. Thus he spent his time herding sheep and literally memorizing the New Testament.

Pardee Butler probably never knew what God had in store for him. In 1855 he moved to Kansas to evangelize and to vote with his body against the evil of slavery. He started the first Stone-Campbell congregation in Mt. Pleasant.

Shortly after his arrival in Kansas life became rough for Butler. During his ministry he was mobbed twice. He was tarred and feathered (actually “cottoned”). And he was “rafted.” Pardee had objected to an editorial in the Squatter Sovereign in Atchison. The next night a group of 30 or 40 men presented him with a series of pro-slavery resolutions and demanded that he cease his anti-slavery sermons. He was accosted and threatened with various punishments, including hanging. When Butler refused to be intimidated the mob deliberated and decided that he would be rafted. Two cottonwood logs were fastened together, Butler was placed aboard this craft in the middle of the Missouri river. A huge “R” was painted on his forehead to signify that he was a rogue. His vessel was commissioned with a flag which portrayed Butler as a “nigger thief” on a galloping horse with a black lady on behind. The flag read: “Eastern Aid Express Rev. Mr. Butler agent for the underground Railroad. Greely to the Rescue I have a nigger.” Butler’s response to these men as they towed him away from the bank was “Gentlemen, if I am drowned I forgive you; but I have this to say to you: If you are not ashamed of your part in this transaction, I am not ashamed of mine. Good-by.” 

News of Butler’s rafting quickly spread throughout the “west.” But things could have been worse for Pardee. Kelly a newspaper man for Atchison wrote of the event “We have just finished ‘tar and feathering’ the Rev. Pardee Butler … He escaped hanging by only one vote. Butler, you know, is a rank abolistionist, and was promised this treatment should he visit our town. In the event of his return, he will be hung.”

Butler was not deterred by mob violence. He continued to preach in Kansas and part of his preaching was Acts 10 that God taught it was wrong to regard any man as “unclean.” In 1858 he sought support from the American Christian Missionary Society of which Isaac Errett was secretary. Errett was anti-slavery in word but not deed. He placed a stipulation on support for Butler that he could not agitate against slavery because it would cause trouble in the Southern churches. Errett wrote “As an anti-slavery man, I sympathize much with you. I share your feelings, but in the missionary work I know nothing of slavery or anti-slavery.”

Pardee Butler was enraged by ACMS’s position. He replied that the brethren in Kansas had made no stipulation on him. Further he insisted that “this matter of slavery is a Bible question – a question of justice between man and man – of mercy and humanity. For myself, I will be no party, now or hereafter, to such an arrangement as that contemplated in your letter.” 

Ben Franklin, legendary editor of the American Christian Review, joined Errett’s attempt to stymie Butler. Franklin thought Butler and other abolitionists were extremists and divisive. Franklin thought he could silence Butler by refusing to publish his reports in ACR and even publicly calling him down. But the man who refused to back down to the mob in Kansas refused to be intimidated by the powerful Editor Bishop. He wrote a booklet called Reply of Elder Pardee Butler to Attacks by Elder Isaac Errett and Benj. Franklin in Recent Numbers of the American Christian Review. His accusers had claimed he was not preaching the gospel. He responded by saying they were compromising moral right for economic convenience and he asked “what is the gospel.” To this he answered:

“What is the gospel? … ‘Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself.’ Is the slave traffic in harmony with this law of love? Now, Brother Franklin, the point is not that you and I differ in our answer to a question of Christian morality, but it is that you dare not answer at all. If you affirm, you lose your popularity in the North; if you deny, you lose your popularity in the South. You, therefore, very prudently say let no answer be given.”

Butler continues, sounding like a 19^th century Amos,

"I would not make this ‘Reformation of the nineteenth century’ a withered and blasted trunk, scattered by the lightnings [sic] of heaven, because it took part with the rich and powerful against the poor and the oppressed.”
Butler continued to work for the gospel of the kingdom in Kansas for another thirty years. He baptized. He challenged. He set the captives free. He was mocked. He was attacked. He bore on his body the marks of Jesus. And if his own fellowship did not celebrate him, others did. At his death the Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church wrote: “I am moved to lay a wreath of tribute upon the grave of an old hero. He was a man of most invincible courage … Here lies one who never feared the face of man. Mr. Butler was a John Knox sort of man.” 

We need stories like Pardee Butler's. We need to know that “we” as a people have heroes who can inspire us to face the anti-kingdom forces of this world with faith. Oh, how I wish I would have learned of Pardee Butler in my college days. He is an Amos. He is a hero. I am proud to have such a man in my family tree. Father, may you raise up others with like Brother Butler to lead the way toward your kingdom.

P.S. One of my prized possessions is The Personal Recollections of Pardee Butler With Reminiscences by His Daughter, Mrs Rosetta B. Hastings, and Additional Chapters by Eld. John Boggs and Eld. J.B. McCleery (1889). And the picture at the top of this post is the actual flag used when Butler was "rafted."

Read More

Forever Free: A Review of Eric Foner

FOREVER FREE : A Review of Eric Foner

February is Black History Month. Each year I set out to read some things related to the theme during this time period. For 2007, I have decided to read Taylor Branch’s third and final volume in his "America in the King Years" series, At Canaan’s Edge. As with the previous two Parting the Waters (Pulitzer Prize) and Pillar of Fire, Branch has written, probably, the best material yet on those eventful years. This final volume is a testament to the power of nonviolent resistance. I could only wish that Christians would read through these books but since they range from over six-hundred to a thousand pages a piece most will simply pass them by.

Thus I am going to recommend a marvelous work by Eric Foner, Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation & Reconstruction … a mere 250 pages that fly by. Foner is one of the foremost historians on 19th century America, especially Reconstruction. This is my fifth book by this author, the previous being: Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War; Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877; America’s Reconstruction: People and Politics After the Civil War; and The Story of American Freedom.

Forever Free, released in November 2006 by Vintage Press is possibly the best book I have read on the period. Foner literally brings the times alive. He is not simply interested in official national policy but what was happening in the popular American mind. Thus we find ourselves in Alabama, South Carolina, St. Louis, New York and New Orleans. To illustrate his theme he dips into an incredible array of sources from newspapers to sermons.

One of the unique features of this books is that after each chapter Foner has a “Visual Essay.” The visual essays are liberally sprinkled with reproduced newspaper articles, advertisements for consumer goods and political parties, and a wide range of other material. These visual essays have a powerful effect in the book … Foner is not talking about academics but the reality of life for people. The rest of the book is also illustrated with dozens of illustrations and photos.

Through the story we run into the often forgotten perspectives of such old friends as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois. We are also introduced to new ones like Mifflin Gibbs and Blanche Bruce.

The mythology of Reconstruction is powerful in America. Films like D.W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation (1915) and Gone with the Wind have had lengthy shadows on our collective psyche. Foner takes on the myths and effectively demolishes them as, at times, bordering on pure fabrication.

Nor is Foner simply interested in the 19th century. The historian moves us into the 20th century and traces out the social forces that shaped Reconstruction down to our own day. He leaves us with the serious question of “have we finished the revolution?” Have we followed through on the promises of justice. For the Christian these are important question.

If you are looking for an incredibly informative book that is also amazingly user friendly and reads as well as a novel then may I recommend that before Black History Month is over that you allow this book to enrich and challenge you. The book recieves four and a half stars from this reader.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

P.S. In line with my Campbell and Wright post below I cited Shaun Casey. Casey is a widely quoted and respected Christian ethicist and supporter of the Just War ethic. Here is a link to a short piece he wrote before the invasion:

http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/011011casey.html

Read More

Alexander Campbell & N. T. Wright on Peace and a "United Nations"

I came across an article today (thanks to Frank Bellizzi) by renowed NT scholar and theologian Nicholas Thomas Wright. The short piece was published in the Washington Post. Wright articulates his belief that at times police action is necessary yet offers his analysis that the Iraq War has never fit the criteria of the Just War Ethic (and most wars have NOT passed muster on this point). Near the end of his short piece Wright makes the suggestion that a strong court of appeal (the UN) is what is necessary to help solve world problems. Wright knows that some will "scoff" at the suggestion. You can access the piece here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/nicholas_t_wright/2007/01/post_2.html

As I read through the article I remembered another distinguished reformer and theologian calling for much the same thing. Only this reformer thrived in the 19th century, his name was Alexander Campbell. Campbell formulated is thoughts in the aftermath of what he viewed as naked aggression on the part of the United States in its invasion of Mexico in 1848. Just for the curious I recommend reading Campbell's Address On War (1848) though it is longer than Wright's. Note the similarity in the proposal at the end. You can access the piece here:

Address on War

Imagine Alexander Campbell and N.T. Wright in convergence - on a great many things actually. It could give cause for pause.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Is Preaching Folly?

"I don't understand preaching, but I believe in it deeply." (Ian Pit-Wilson).

My recent move from a wonderful congregation in Milwaukee to a wonderful congregation in Tucson has lead me to reflect on my role as a preacher and preaching itself. Just who am I? Just what do I think I am doing? Does anyone in our age really give a rip? Over the last several weeks I have come to formulate a series of questions that perhaps can be summed up in one single question: Is preaching ... FOLLY? I have reached a "conclusion" of sorts like the grand old (wonderful) preacher of Ecclesiastes. This is my conclusion until I change my mind! Preaching is folly.

After ruminating on my life task I have identified four reasons why preaching is apparently folly. They are, in the order of importance to my mind:

1) The infinite gulf between the object of our preaching and the weakness of our lives. Is it not sheer folly for a mere mortal to stand before other mere mortals and insist he or she has a word from God? Surely the poet was speaking of preachers "Frail children of dust, and feeble as frail."

2) The infinite gulf between the holiness of God and the sinfulness of our lives. When I stop to think about the unapproachable light that my God dwells in (1 Tim 6.16), I recognize the darkness of my own "life." The temerity that must fill my veins to stand in the name of that holy God and speak, I cannot help but think this is folly.

3) The indifference of the world. This age is incredibly indifferent to preachers. Every Lord's Day a person stands and announces that the world has been redeemed and that a Man has come back from the grave ... but this age is so impressed it stays in bed!! Thus I see that compared to proclaiming effectively to my postmodern world, I am insignificant. Indeed, it would seem, foolish.

4) The inadequacy of my method and approach. That incredible message that many stay in bed not to hear is hindered by my insufficiency. Just how am I to communicate the wonderous gospel of grace? It seems that as soon as I figure out how to preach to the family ... the family has changed and I am out of touch once again. And yet, it seems, that God uses our preaching to reach and touch and bless some. Is it not folly?

But "Christ's love compels us" (2 Cor. 5.14) ... but who is equal to the task?

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Spirit Lives Lead to Spirit Led Worship: HS & Disciple Part 3

Spirit Lives Lead to Spirit Led Worship

This is my third in a series of thoughts on the Holy Spirit and the disciple from Paul's letter we call "Ephesians." The previous two are:

Holy Spirit & the Disciple Part 1

Holy Spirit & the Disciple Part 2

I am currently engaged in intense study of Ephesians for a series of lessons I am calling Christian Community 101 to begin on June 3rd if all goes according to plan. This post continues those ruminations on passages related to the Holy Spirit in Ephesians. I hope to share my study of Eph. 5.18-21. The translations are my own.

"Do not get drunk on wine ...
But be filled with/by/in the Spirit,
SPEAKING to one another
with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs,
SINGING and MAKING MUSIC with your hearts to the Lord.

GIVING thanks to God
for all things
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
SUBMITTING yourselves to one another
out of reverence for Christ."

Ephesians 5.18-21 though often broken up in our English translations is rather a long single sentence in the Greek text. The sentence is part of the larger paragraph beginning with v.15.

Context of the Passage

In the context of our passage Paul has developed his argument in the letter (see the previous posts for this). In the preceding sections/paragraphs (4.17-24; 4.25-5.2; 5.3-14) Paul has used the metaphor of "walking" (4.17; 5,2 8) to contrast the lifestyle of those who reside "in Christ" and those who do not. That is those who make up the "one new man/humanity." The context is thus one of ethics and the daily conduct of the saint before the fallen pagan world. The verb occurs at the beginning of the present paragraph in v.15 "Be very careful, then how you live/walk ..." spelling out the ethical implications of being awakened from the sleep and having Christ shine on us (5.14). This stands sort of like a heading to the paragraph and is explained by a series of three antithesis of "not ... but".

The three contrasts in the paragraph of 5.15-21:

1) "Not as unwise but as wise (v.15b)

2) "Not as foolish but understand (v.17)

3) "Not drunk with wine but filled with/by the Spirit" (v.18)

Some Insight from Historical Context

Our text is the third contrast of two Spirits; that of Bacchus and the Spirit of the Lord. This contrast amplifies what it means for the Christian to live carefully and wisely by being filled with the Holy Spirit.

What I want to call attention to is that there are two imperatives in our text: "do not get drunk" and "be filled with/by the Spirit." In the pagan enviroment of these early Christians Bacchus/Dionysus was a potent and deadly force. Dionysus was the Greek god of grapes and wine. Euripides, famous for his Bacchae (see a good English translation in Greek Tagedies, vol 3, David Greene and Richard Lattimore, editors, University of Chicago Press).

The Dionysiac Mysteries were relatively "young" in the ancient world (apparently they was not old in Homer's day). The general features of these mysteries were orgiastic and ecstatic celebrations. Weakened by fasting, the devotees in wild ecstatic dance worked themselves into delirium. In this state they ate the raw flesh, with the blood in it, of animals that had been seized. Throughout the Eastern Empire traveling guilds depicted this in dramtic form. Some cities had a "Villa Item" or "House of Mysteries" like the famous one in Pompeii. The House of Mystery in Pompeii has paintings preserved depicting flagellation followed by ecstatic dance (for more on the Dionysiac Mysteries see Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, pp. 205-210 and Euripides, The Bacchae). For more specific background on Eph. 5.18 see the article by C. Rogers, "The Dionysian Background of Ephesians 5.18," Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (1979): 249-257.

Dionysus was a popular god among the masses, as were his mysteries. Free flowing wine was often associated with pagan worship so Paul is justly concerned about it here in Ephesians. Indeed, some scholars see here a real problem among the Roman Asian churches just as there had been a problem with drunkenness in the Corinthian congregation (1 Cor. 11.17-22).

Reading the Text

Paul commands the readers of this letter not to get filled (drunk) with the spirit of wine (Baccuhus). Its behavior is antithetical to one who belongs to Christ.

Paul does, however, want Christians to be filled (drunk?) with a Spirit. Indeed, he even commands it. "Be filled with/by the Spirit." It is even possible to render these two antithetical commands as "Never be drunk ... Always be filled with the Spirit" (cf. Gordon Fee, God's Empowering Presence, p. 720). Paul comes back to what is basically the root of all authentic Christian behavior; that is behavior that is the result of being Spirit people. People filled with (drunk?) with the Holy Spirit. People who live by the Spirit and walk by the Spirit. It seems to me that this is what Paul said earlier in Galatians 5.16. "I mean this: Live by the Spirit, and then you will not indulge your physical cravings" (Goodspeed's New Testament: An American Translation).

The actual expression of the imperative is unusual. Paul says not "be full of the Spirit" as though one were full of teh Spirit of God in the same manner another is filled with Bacchae. Rather, he says be filled "by the Spirit with emphasis on being filled to the full through the Spirit's presence. It seems to me that Paul is purposefully using this language recalling the language in his prayer in 3.14-21. There Paul prays that we be empowered by the Spirit so that as Christ dwells in them, by the Spirit, they become the "fullness of God." Christians then are to be full of God's Spirit who mediates the presence of the Father and the Son (cf 2.22).

What follows next are a series of five participles that modify the imperative "be filled by the Spirit." These are a type of adjectival particple called "dependent participles of result." A participle of result is "used to indicate the actual outcome or result of the action of teh main verb (cf. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, p. 637).

For my purposes what the participle of result means is they demonstrate what it means to be filled by/with the Spirit. I indicated the participles at the beginning of my post in the translation of the text. Once again they are "speaking," "singing," "making music/melody," "giving thanks," and "submitting." It is commonly heard in some pulpits that we are commanded to sing in this text but that is not the case. We are commanded to be filled with/by the Spirit. Singing, in this text, is simply one of the results of being filled with the Holy Spirit of God.

Rather than drunken pagan songs, Christians show their wisdom by being filled with the Spirit and singing (Holy) Spirit songs. Christians show their understanding of the will of God by being filled with the Spirit thus making melodies to the Lord. Christians filled with the Spirit are full of thanksgiving for the grace that has been poured out upon them. And perhaps most difficult of all is Christians filled with the Spirit submit to each other our of reverance for the One who made it all possible ... Christ.

A few Church Fathers, like John Chrysostom, compared Christians to a flute. The Holy Spirit is said to "play" a Christian like a muscian would the flute. The "breath" (i.e. spirit) flows through the Christian producing a certain melody and harmony just as the "breath" (i.e. spirit) of the musician flows through the flute. What an insightful understanding of the text.

Paul says that when Christians are "never full" of Bacchae, but "always full" of the Spirit certain patterns of behavior come to the fore like a fine tuned instrument. The result of being filled with the Spirit is:

1) We are constantly encouraging one another with our Spirit songs

2) We are constantly giving praise to the Lord

3) We are constantly giving thanksgiving

4) We are always in submission to one another to bring "harmony" in the family of God.

This last point is of particular relevance to the letter of Ephesians. It will be recalled from our earlier study that Paul is at pains to show that Gentiles are equal heirs to the promises of God to Israel. There remained some kind of hostility between these ethnic groups. But Paul says that one who is filled with/by the Spirit "submits to the other ..." even those we don't like ... out of reverence for Jesus the Christ. This kind of behavior comes only from the Spirit.

No where in this text is it hinted at that that these processes are the result of the "word" (as some are wont to suggest). Paul says they are the result of the filling of the Holy Spirit in the life of disciples.

In short I summarize this passage under the heading "Spirit Lives Lead to Spirit Led Worship."

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More