The Discipleship of Reading: An Opinion

"When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments" - Paul

What is the relationship of reading and ministry? Or more specifically is there a correlation between reading and preaching and teaching? Should there be a relationship? Is reading an area of discipleship for the minister?

I grew up in a tradition that delivered mixed signals regarding ministry and reading. Oh! the rumblings of discontent at International Bible College (now Heritage Christian University) when General Jackson Wheeler made ministerial students read classics in a required English class. I recall more that one student declaring there was no relevance of this to preaching. "All I need to read is the Bible!" was the mantra. I recall in a class with Steve Williams on the history of Christian doctrine those same tremors. "Why should we be reading this, it is a waste of time. What is Athanasius, Augustine, Luther ... or even Campbell to me?" Since entering full time ministry in 1992 I have encountered the same ambiguity. I personally know ministers who are serious students of the Word and I have encountered others whom I feel sorry for the folks who listen to them.

A few years ago Jackson Carroll published a survey of 2,500 American clergy in Christian Century. In this survey the typical minister spent 4 hours reading each week (this includes "mainline" and "conservative" ministers). The ministers were asked what 3 authors they read most. Among the conservatives Max Lucado, Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes in that selection. The last three books to have been read included The Prayer of Jabez, Fresh Wind; Fresh Fire, and Purpose Driven Church ... the Left Behind Series was prominent too. Read Carroll's findings HERE.

Carroll's survey, though dated now, probably still reflects the basic orientation of reading habits of ministers. Some of the reading reflects the "hot" book of the day and some pragmatic issues like growing a church. Yet much of what is being digested is, frankly, shallow. I was gratified that C. S. Lewis is one that is read among clergy ... but in my own personal experience I know few ministers that have read much of Lewis.

But if reading IS connected to ministry, including pastoral care, how should we go about cultivating it? Paul in 2 Timothy 4.13 asks for his scrolls, which more than likely refers to his Septuagint ... but the parchments seems to have a broader meaning. If Paul felt it necessary to cultivate the discipleship of reading it probably would serve us well too.

Eugene Peterson suggests that ministers actually block out time (lets say one hour) everyday not only for prayer but also for reading. Reading that is not related to the current sermon topic. Reading is in the service of the spiritual life and personal growth. In what areas should we read?

First, I believe every minster should be a student of the Word in the fullest sense. An astronomer knows about astronomy. A minster should know about the Word. When a young person heads to college and reads about Gilgamesh and inquires of his long time preacher I submit the preacher should know about Gilgamesh without resorting to special pleading or caricature. In a day and time when lots of folks read about the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Judas the minister ought to have at least heard of those things. So in my view a minister will absorb (over time) an understanding of the unified Story of Scripture, and the individual settings of the individual books. Fall in love with the Book and know about the book. Know about the history of the Bible ... Astronomers know who Galileo was and what he did. Ministers should know who Jerome, Wycliff, Luther and Tyndale all have in common.

Second, I believe every minister should know the general contours of the story of Christianity AND their own situation in that story within their tradition. Contrary to popular mythology what happened between 100 AD and 2009 AD does matter because those years shape in profound ways not only what we think but what we actually hear and see. Believe it or not it even affects how we interpret the Scriptures themselves ... which themselves are a product of those intervening years from 100 to 2009!

Third, I believe every minister should cultivate the habit of reading some of the great minds of the world. These minds have wrestled in profound ways with issues that we continue to face. We learn, again contrary to popular mythology, that faith is complex and not for the weak of heart. We are actually reading and reflecting on Scripture itself as we read with Ignatius, Augustine, Luther, and Campbell. It is the "communion of saints" as we wrestle together. These minds will also include Plato, Maimonides, among others that will help us lift up our eyes.

Fourth, I believe every minister should read about practical ministry too. I have read at least one book on preaching every year for the last 10 years. Ministry with divorcees has been an obvious need in my own life for the past two years. Or working in the Singles world (I am one of those millions of singles in the church today). But even in this area pastoral care needs to be rooted in healthy theology. In this category I would put reading in a way that expands our ministerial "imagination" to work in and through our particular time and place.

There are those who will disagree with my views expressed in this post. Yet it seems to me that we are disciples. That is we are Students. If we are to address our ever complex world we must have a depth of understanding of the Word, our Situation, and World. Here is a short list of Good books that fall into the above categories:

Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, John Walton; A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, Walter Brueggemann (etc), Knowing Jesus through the Old Testament, Christopher J.H. Wright; The Challenge of Jesus, N.T. Wright; Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Everett Ferguson; In the Beginning, Alister McGrath; The Story of Christianity, 2 Vols Justo Gonzalez; The Lost History of Christianity, Philip Jenkins; Reviving the Ancient Faith, Richard Hughes; Theology for the Community of God, Stanley Grenz; Preaching the Sermon on the Mount, Fleer & Bland; Radical Recovery, Suzy Brown ... a few gems.

Read More

Reframing the Question: Exercise in Hermeneutics and Grace

I am taking a brief diversion from our mediations on Jesus &  Sabbath to reflect on a question that was put to me the other day. It is not the first time that this question (though perhaps not in the exact same words) has been asked of me. The question is:

"Can a person perform worship acts incorrectly, or the wrong acts altogether, and still be pleasing to God?" Another form of this question is "Can a person be baptized for the wrong reason and be pleasing to God?"

I think the question is misframed from the start. I compare this framing of the question to the lawyer who is "leading the witness" in a court setting. The framing of the question distorts the testimony of Scripture. In answer to THAT misframed question the answers are ...

Clearly there are worship acts that are displeasing to God. Clearly there are worship acts that are wrong.

HOWEVER The question is, rather, does the Biblical narrative testify to people 1) either leaving a worship act "undone" or 2) performing a worship "act" incorrectly ... and being accepted by God inspite of the reality that it is wrong? THIS IS THE QUESTION.

Framing the question(s) this way highlights what the Scriptures ACTUALLY testify too. What does the Story of God reveal? When we look at the unified narrative of God through Genesis, Exodus, Judges, Kings, Chronicles, to name but a few scenes from that drama of grace, what do we see? They testify too:

1) That is -  yes - there are wrong acts of worship
2) That God's People often fail in their attempt to worship properly. Humans one hundred percent of the time fall vastly short of the glory of God in worship to him.

AND embedded in the Story we see

3) That CORRECT acts of worship can be, and are, DISPLEASING to God as much as incorrect ones
4) That People can and have (according to the Holy Spirit's testimony) done incorrect worship acts and yet were ACCEPTED by God.

Now anyone with beyond a freshman level knowledge of the biblical story knows that all four statements above are TRUE. Sometimes these themes are juxtaposed in the same narrative.

For Example:

Nadab and Abihu did get toasted for insulting the holiness of God (Lev 10.1-11). This is a story that is often used to present half of the biblical truth. Yet this disaster is contrasted (by the Holy Spirit) with Eleazar and Ithamar (Lev 10.12-20). What is the purpose of this bringing together two very similar "mistakes" regarding worship but with radically different results? Why is one set of brothers destroyed YET the other set granted healing mercy and divine grace? Do we dare affirm that Yahweh is simply arbitrary!! What do we discern that is the difference: was the difference one of technical precision or was the difference located within the often conflicted human heart? Since I revolt at the notion that the Father of Jesus is purely arbitrary I embrace the notion, highlighted repeatedly in the biblical narrative, that God accepted Eleazar & Ithamar on the basis of knowing their hearts. It shows no respect for either the interity or the authority of Scripture to embrace the first story and hide or deny ... or denigrate ... the latter. Such a precedure reveals more about the person than either God or the biblical text.

Though at times Leviticus 10.11ff, and my next example are characterized as "sugarstick" texts by those who imagine we are saved by correctness, the Holy Spirit of God saw fit to tell the story of those who did very little according to the "book" in 2 Chronicles 29-30. The story of Hezekiah's Passover is no fleeting moment in the history of God's People according to the Chronicler. By comparison it is one of the longest and most detailed episodes within the entire history of 1-2 Chronicles. The author thought it was THAT important. The Holy Spirit expressly declares that the worshippers did practically nothing associated with the Passover "right" ... and yet it is declared to be one of the greatest worship services in Israel's history (v. 26). For God looks at the "heart" that is "seeking God" (v.19) rather than simply ritualistic precision. Sugarstick or not this text is IN the biblical canon and is written for our learning. How do we integrate it into our theology and what does it say about the God we worship?

In another place one wonders what King David was doing wearing the linen ephod? David is much like any other Mesopotamian monarch of the day in doing this. He is assuming the role of Priest and King. The ephod part of the High Priest's vestments but David was neither Aaronic nor Levite! Yet the Scriptures tell us (2x) that he was wearing it (2 Sam 6.14 and 1 Chron 15.27). This latter text is very interesting indeed. In the context David is bringing the ark back (after the Lord broke out against Israel in the Uzzah episode ... which David later assumes responsibility for). David dresses like the Levites with his "linen robe" (15.27) he wore the linon ephod (v.27) that the Priest wears. As the narrative moves into chapter 16 it states quite explicitly that David offered the sacrifices ...

"After David had finished sacrificing the burnt offerings and fellowship offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD. Then he gave a loaf of bread, a cake of dates and a cake of raisins to each Israelite man and woman" (1Chron 16.2-3)

In Second Samuel 6.13 David also is declared to have sacrificed animals as worship to the LORD. After the sacrifices David gave a magnificent hymn to Asaph for the singing worship of Israel (16.7-36). Interestingly enough as this worship service closes at the end of chapter 16 we learn that they sang with all kinds of instruments but the writer says everything Israel did that day was in "accordance" with the Law of the Lord (16.40). This clearly does not mean that David was authorized to wear a linen ephod of the High Priest in the Law of Moses or that instruments were commanded by Moses or that David could offer sacrifices according to the Law of Moses. But it does mean that God ACCEPTED that worship service.

On the other hand in the biblical canon we read of "legal" worship that is rejected by God. Amos roasts the Israelites for their worship. He flays the worship assemblies! God "hates" Israel's feasts, assemblies, new moons, sabbaths and sacrifice! All of these things were commanded, explicitly, in the Law of Moses. Yet God rejects their formally correct worship for the exact same reason he accepts the formally INcorrect worship of Eleazar/Ithamar, David, and Hezekiah. Yahweh looks for the heart that "seeks God." Now that phrase is not used explicitly in Amos 5 but that is the meaning in the text. Israel's interest in going through the motions, in ignoring the weightier matters of the law (sounds like Jesus actually), made the worship stink in God's nostrils!!!

So I stress once again the question is NOT are there worship acts that can be undone and we "please" God. Or are there worship acts that can be done INcorrectly. The answer is yes there are. We want to serve God in purity of heart and we also want to worship as he directs. Yet the question that actually fits the biblical narrative is: "Can one perform an act of worship incorrectly and still be accepted by God?" According to the Holy Spirit Yahweh has done this on more than one occasion.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Tucson, AZ

Read More

Jesus, David, Sabbath & Mercy #1: Reading Mat 12

I plan on doing a series of posts related to Matthew 12.1ff on Jesus and the Sabbath. I plan on placing the text in its historical setting first; second I want to place it with in the argument of the Gospel of Matthew (which has a plot just as surely as Romans or Philippians) ; and third I want to see how Jesus' makes use of the material from the Hebrew Bible. I hope to make reading these posts worth the time of everyone. Even if we do not come to the same conclusions regarding it perhaps we will all see it in fresh light.


Jesus, David, Sabbath & Mercy #1: Reading Matthew 12

Introductory Remarks

For anyone who has read the New Testament scriptures after the Hebrew Bible we learn that the circumcision and sabbath controversy figures more in the former than the latter. Indeed, circumcision is not mentioned in connection with any controversy and not much at all in the Hebrew Bible. The sabbath principle, however, underlies a large portion of the Hebraic doctrine of "grace" and even eschatology ... Sabbath is the basis for the Year of Jubilee etc. The only real controversy is in Jeremiah when the king and people renege on the promised release of slaves in accordance with the Sabbath of Sabbaths the year of release/favor/ grace.

It was the history of God's People, especially the previous 2 centuries before Jesus, that brought the sabbath and circumcision to the fore front. Through the fire of the Selucid persecution with its banning both circumcision and sabbath these two items gained in existential importance. As a result of this persecution these two features became THE identifying marks of Judaism in the Roman Empire. Just as Instrumental Music has become tied to the very identity of the Churches of Christ (and for the same sort of reasons) so these became essential to Jewish sense of identity.

A note on social context. First century Judaism was NOT simply the religion that we read about in the "Old Testament" or Hebrew Bible. Many historical/social forces caused changes in the way the faith of Israel was expressed. Other sources, once highly regarded and even believed to be canonical, helped shape those views. One such work, Jubilees has very important material on the Sabbath.

Jubilees was considered canonical by the Qumran community. The Dead Sea Scroll Bible edited by Abegg, Flint and Ulrich notes that Jubilees is cited as scripture by several non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, most importantly by the Damascus Document which is sort of a constitution for the community. Jubilees is represented by 15 scrolls found among the Qumran treasure. Only Psalms, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Exodus and Genesis (in descending order) are represented by more scrolls than Jubilees. At any rate Jubilees was a very important work among Jews (and later among many Church Fathers) in Jesus day and it helps us understand what most pious Jews actually believed about the Sabbath in the time of Jesus ...

Sabbath Theology and Beliefs (a Snippet)

According to Jubilees, most pious Jews believed the Sabbath was something that even God and the angels observed in heaven. It was in existence prior to the creation of the world. It was a "sign" of something beyond "this" world ...

"And he [God] gave us a great sign, the sabbath day, so that we might work six days and observe a sabbath from all work on the seventh day. And he told us [i.e the Angels] - all the angels of the presence and the angels of sanctification, these two great kinds- that we might keep the sabbath with him [God] in heaven and on earth. And he said to us, 'Behold I shall separate for myself a people from among the nations. And they will also keep the sabbath ..." (Jubilees 2.17-19)

From this text we see that most Jews believed that God himself observed the sabbath before the creation of the world, that the angels were privileged to observe it with him and that one of the purposes of calling Israel was to observe the "sign" ... that is the sign of the transcendent realm ... of the sabbath with God and the angels on earth.

Jubilees helps understand not only some of the lofty opinions regarding the sabbath but sheds light on what the majority of Jews thought to be "work" and "lawful" on the sabbath day. The Angel who delivers the message in Jubilees closes chapter 2 discussing what is considered work. The Angel declares:

"Let everyone who defiles it [i.e. the sabbath] let him surely die." (2.25; cf. 50.8, 13) )

So even though the death penalty was not enforced in Jesus' day by Jews for breaking the sabbath it is clear that many still held the view that such should be the case. The Angel continues by describing the kind of work that shall not be done

"And they should not prepare thereon anything which will be eaten or drunk, which they have not prepared on the sixth day ... On this day we kept the sabbath in heaven before it was made known to any human ..." (Jubilees 2. 29f)

The Rabbis (and rabbinic Judaism is ONE form of Judaism which seemingly preserves the traditions of the Pharisees) codified in the Mishnah several kinds of work that were forbidden. This list was designed to protect the sanctity of the sabbath (as they understood it). There views were rooted in the interpretation of the Torah and likely Jubilees too. The words of Jubilees and the Mishnah help frame the question that was put to Jesus. "Reaping" was understood to be forbidden on the sabbath day (cf. Exodus 34.21) by the rabbis. It was not just the reaping but eating food that was not prepared the prior day.

The folks from Qumran that gave us the Dead Sea Scrolls agreed with Jubilees (since Jubilees seems to have been considered Scripture at Qumran this should not surprise us) and the Rabbis (and the folks at Qumran were not Pharisees). But the Damascus Document states,

"Let only that be eaten on the Sabbath day which has been prepared on the previous day." (X, 22)

Interestingly enough the Rabbis agree with Jesus that saving a life (learned through the horror of the Maccabean revolt) is permitted on the sabbath. The Qumran folks forbade that AND helping your animal out of the ditch. The Pharisees were the "liberals" of the day believe it or not. The Essenes were the arch conservatives of the day. It is important to note that the Pharisees believed it was lawful to save a LIFE on the sabbath but a physcican was forbidden to practice medicine in NON-life threatening situations. Thus to set a bone was forbidden. This highlights the tension in the pericope following the field episode.


The Sabbath in the Fire Pit

I pointed out above that the Selucid Empire attempted to integrate the Israelites more fully into a Hellenistic culture. The meant adopting Greek worship and piety. One consequence was the elimination of those practices that were alien to the Greeks. It was a costly and deadly experience for the great grandparents of the Pharisees who confronted Jesus that day ...

According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children
circumcised, and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers’ necks. But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die. And very great wrath came upon Israel (1 Maccabees 1.60-64).

It was through the blood of Israel that the Sabbath and circumcision became foremost in defining what a "Jew" is. When we imagine ourselves pointing to grandparents, aunts and uncles that lost their lives rather than compromise on these two points then we begin to see the trauma of the sabbath controversies in the Gospels and the early church.

One more helpful tidbit when reading these stories in Matthew 12 is that it was believed that David visited the tabernacle in 1 Samuel 21 on the sabbath day. In our next post, when we look at how Jesus uses these examples from the Scriptures, we will see why.

I hasten to say that Jesus did not reject sabbath theology. In fact the Gospels present Jesus' ministry as the coming of that gracious Sabbath of Sabbaths. Jesus' issue is altogether different.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Tucson, AZ

Read More

K. C. Moser: Student of the Word

Alister McGrath in his recent outstanding study Christianity's Dangerous Idea asserts Protestantism gift to Christianity was the belief that all people have the right to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves. This "democratizing agenda" as McGrath terms it (p. 53) is certainly one that the founders of the Stone-Campbell Movement embraced with enthusiasm. These individual readings, over time, became collective readings that were more often than not shaped by controversies (p. 204). In our own Movement the rhetoric of freedom to study to "show ourselves approved unto God" has remained a constant. Yet many conclusions arrived at through the polemics that lead to the separation of Churches of Christ from the Disciples have led to powerful social impulses to conform to these assured results.

Though most frequently seen as the lighting rod in the "Man vs the Plan" controversy, Kenny Carl Moser is a case study in the protestant principle within one individual. Here is an outline of his life ...

Born January 23, 1893

1914 Publishes “I’ll Take Jesus,” and “Marching On to Glory-Land” in Hosanna to the King, No.2 edited by Emmett S. Dean (Trio Music Company)

1914 Approved by the Texas Dept of Education to teach

1915 Enters Thorp Springs Christian College (has discussions with father and C. R.
Nichol on the indwelling Spirit)

1918 Teaches Music at Thorp Springs

1919 Preacher in Normangee, TX. Publishes first known article (“Doing the Will of God” in October 23 Firm Foundation

1920 Preacher in Longview, TX

1921-23 Ministers with the Wewoka church. Co-Editor of The Herald of Truth
1923-26 Minister with 10th & Francis Church in Okla City. Teaches the personal
indwelling of the Spirit for the first time here in 1925

1926? Frederick, Okla

1927-30? Back to Wewoka Published Studies in Romans (Outlines and Comments)

1930-? Abilene, TX

1932 The Way of Salvation

1933-34 Associate at Tenth & Austin, Wichita Falls, TX (publishes “Can the Gospel Be Obeyed?)

1935 Ardmore, Okla Publishes “Six Gospel Sermons”

1937 Publishes “Are We Preaching the Gospel?”

1937-40 Morton/Lubbock, TX

1939 Appears on the ACC Lectureship

1940-47 Preaches for 12th & Drexel in Okla City

1947-50 Enid, Okla

1948-49 Staff writer for World Vision
1952 Publishes Christ Vs. A Plan

1950-56? Back to 12th & Drexel

1956 Moves to Lubbock

1957 Publishes The Gist of Romans
1960 Publishes A Re-Study of Salvation (a revised version of “Christ Vs A Plan)

1964 Accepts teaching position at LCC

1974 Contributes essay, “Our Lack of Understanding of the Person and Mission of Jesus” to J. D. Thomas’ What Lack We Yet?

1976 February 17, enters his rest

1976 Last published article appears in 20th Century Christian six weeks after his death. It is called, appropriately, “Jesus and the Resurrection.”

Moser began his spiritual adventure rooted squarely in the "Texas Tradition [1]" The Firm Foundation was the principle organ of this theological stream within Churches of Christ. The power to conform is testified to by Moser, "I was brought up at the feet of teachers who denied the indwelling of the Spirit and for no better reason I denied it too. After I began to study for myself, I soon discovered that no doctrine is more plainly taught than the doctrine of the indwelling Spirit.” This quote reveals Moser passion for spiritual integrity before God. He inherited a position on the Holy Spirit but embraced a very unpopular position because he began to "study for [himself]."

Moser found himself in deep trouble because he embrace the rhetoric of studying for himself as a birthright. Through his writing career he exhibits a pioneering attitude and vigorous independence in his study of the Word of God. Moser believed there were three critical principles involved in God honoring Bible study.

1) the disciple must have an intelligent method of study

2) the disciple must be honest

3) the disciple must embrace a non-sectarian spirit

By method Moser meant a close contextual reading of any passage of Scripture. As a contributor for both the Gospel Advocate and World Vision Moser chose the title "Text and Context" for his columns.

By honesty Moser meant "a sincere desire to know the truth." The disciple seeks "to be taught himself" not to be a teacher of others. The disciple does not approach the text to "prove another wrong." Rather the goal is to be lead by God's Spirit to understanding and living the truth that is discovered.

By embracing a non-sectarian spirit Moser meant the disciple has no special loyalty to "our position." In fact "my, your, or our position might be unadulterated error." The sectarian spirit is among all the enemies of spiritual Bible study the worst. Sectarianism spills blood! Again testifying to the power to conform Moser states
"there are too many who are willing to sacrifice the influence and good name of those who differ from themselves; and, too, for the reason, chiefly, that some one is considered out of line with 'our position.' To pronounce one a heretic simply because he is out of line with others is ... rank sectarianism." There are plenty who live in fear of their own convictions because they may "be put out of the synagogue."

Moser's testimony to the power of coercion was experienced in his own life. He was kicked out of the Texas synagogue and found a welcome with in the Nashville Bible School stream of the Churches of Christ. His courage to actually compare his inherited faith against a careful and dedicated reading of the Scripture is worthy of emulation. G. C. Brewer commented on Moser's approach as "the most encouraging thing I have seen ... among the disciples of Christ" in decades.

It is my prayer that Christianity's Dangerous Idea will once again take root among "us." I pray that ministers, elders, deacons, pew packers will follow Moser's example. Let's embrace a method that respects the narrative context of the Bible. Let's seek after the truth and embrace it as God enables us. Let's embrace a non-sectarian attitude that does not assume that "our" position is the correct one but rather once again returns to the Word seeking enlightenment from above. Lets pray for eyes to see the river of the Spirit and for ears to hear the rhythm of grace.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine



[1] For more on the difference between the "Texas Tradition" and the "Nashville Bible School Tradition" in Churches of Christ see John Mark Hicks and Bobby Valentine, Kingdom Come: Embracing the Spiritual Legacy of David Lipscomb and James Harding; John Mark Hicks "The Struggle for the Soul of the Churches of Christ (1897-1907) and Bobby Valentine "Lipscomb of Texas vs. Lipscomb of Nashville: R. L. Whiteside's Rejection of David Lipscomb's Pacifism" both of these are in Thomas Olbricht & David Fleer (eds) And the Word Became Flesh: Studies in History, Communication, and Scripture in Memory of Michael W. Casey.

Read More