American Empire: A Very Brief History of Our Imperialism

Opening Quote

"The history of the United States shows that in spite of the varying trend of the foreign policy of succeeding administrations, this Government has interposed or intervened in the affairs of other states with remarkable regularity, and it may be anticipated that the same general procedure will be followed in the future." (- U.S. Marine Corps, Small Wars Manual, 1940)

Entering Where Angels Fear to Tread

I realize at the outset, that my title is likely going to cause a few of my readers consternation. However I do not use it simply to inflame reaction but because I genuinely believe it is an accurate representation of US history.

As I begin I want to confess that it never ceases to amaze me how grossly uninformed Americans (Christian or otherwise) are of their own history and that handmaiden to it geography.  Apparently many children have been "left behind." We see the "evidence" in test in which Americans identify Australia as Russia! We laugh when David Letterman or Jay Leno ask people walking down the street such difficult questions as: who did the United States gain its independence from and what is celebrated on the "Fourth of July" - only to learn that it was from the Canadians!! And not a clue what is celebrated on "Independence Day!" Or we have watched on YouTube the beautiful South Carolina gal explain why Americans cannot even find America on a world map, if not then go here Miss Teen USA 2007. People so uniformed may get upset because they adhere to half truths and manufacture a mythic past that controls their present - a most dangerous procedure. I advance apologies to them at the be

Perhaps the most powerful myth is that America - the United States - is a peace loving country and has only reluctantly either gone to war or used its military might with great hesitation and never has imposed its will on sovereign states in an imperialistic fashion.  This is a gross misrepresentation of our history but one that is unbelievably believed even by folks who should know better. We learn what might be called the Great Wars version of American military power presented in most public high schools. In this version we learn the USA has engaged in

1) War of Independence
2) War of 1812
3) Mexican War
4) Civil War
5) Spanish-American War
6) WW I
7) WW II
8) Korean War
9) Vietnam

And now Gulf Wars 1 & 2. But this is only the tip of the iceberg above the water.  The Marine Corps Small Wars Manual in 1940 knew a far different reality.  My dear reader did you know that between 1800 and 1934 that the United States Marines engaged in over 180 landings abroad? Yes 180! This is amazing considering that originally the Founding Fathers did not see fit to create a standing army nor navy!

I recently finished The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Max Boot. This book, published in 2002, won  "Book of the Year" awards from various entities (Washington Post, LA Times, et) and the 2003 "General Wallace M Greene" award for Marine Corps history.  Boot is a very conservative, and proud, exponent of American power and exceptionalism.  Yet this is a great book in spite of the fact that he thinks diplomacy is best done behind a 16" naval gun.  Boot confesses his own ignorance before he began to write this book, "most of these actions were terra incognita to me" (p. xv).  Boot divides the history of America's "Savage Wars of Peace" into three eras: 1) Commercial Power [1790s-1890s]; 2) Great Power [1898-1941]; 3) Super Power [1941-Present]. Boot even describes American policy in the Pacific with the terms "Empire Emerging" but this is not a lament in Boot but something for which to be proud.  Boot ultimately writes to defend what he calls the "Pax Americana." Most of the material in Boot's book I was already aware of yet it remains a stimulating read for those who have a mythic understanding of our supposed peaceful heritage.

This post should not be seen as an "attack" upon America at all. Rather it is an honest coming to terms with reality and embracing the ironic contradictions that have made up the history of the USA.  It is also a call to humbler status in light of the demands of the Kingdom of God. What follows is an overview of our Empire and how we achieved that status some comes from Boot and others from my own research.  I will be making reference to other sources that I have read that go into much more detail on a given point or episode. 

Emergence of the American Empire

I believe our sanitized memories is the first thing that lets us perpetuate the myth of our being a so called Christian nation or the myth of a peaceful one.  I did not point this out before but this blog grew out of a discussion with a beloved friend who had a very different perspective than I do (or did) and insisted I was guilty of an evil known as "revisionism."  One after the other example though came the reply "I did not know that" or "I never heard of that."  Thus our "sanitized" memories that hurt us in our present.

1) The Monroe Doctrine adopted in 1823 has been the basis for much mischief in Latin America by the United States.   We even almost went to war with Britain in 1895 because of it. I can only be brief here but I learned none of this in high school ...On the basis of the Monroe Doctrine the United States has sent troops to and occupied the following nations: Mexico (1914); Haiti (1915); Dominican Republic (1916); Mexico (1916 - nine more times btw after that); Cuba (1917) and Panama (1918) ... and I will briefly expand ... 

a) between 1856 and 1902 the US forces landed in Panama 13x.  At the time Panama was part of Columbia. In 1902 Panama with US "help" became the Republic of Panama and signed away a ten mile zone that became the Panama Canal

b) Nicaragua has experience US military landings in 1893 and significant occupation from 1926 to 1933.

c) The United States became the "Lords of Hispaniola" from 1915 to 1934.  The US occupied Haiti outright in a bloody conflict from 1915 to 1934 and the Dominican Republic from 1916 to 1924.  For the blatant, bloody imperialistic and even racist policy in Haiti see Schmidt's work based largely on Army archives, The United States Occupation of Haiti, 1915-1934.

2)  Doctrine of Manifest Destiny.  This is nothing, if we are honest, but imperialism.  In the name of this "Destiny" the United States slaughtered thousands of native Americans, forcefully moved them from their land, broke hundreds of treaties.  The "Trail of Tears"  and Indian Territory being "indian territory" until the grass no longer grows and the sun no longer shines ... well the grass is still growing and the sun is still shining.  As far back as the 1880s Helen Jackson wrote a moving account of our national disgrace in "A Century of Dishonor"  or Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. 

3) The War with Mexico, 1848.  This was pure aggression on the part of the United States.  The proud naturalized citizen, Alexander Campbell vocally condemned this war of territorial expansion, preservation of slavery, and aggression.  Manifest Destiny in action again.  Campbell's protests can be read here among other places (Address on War). Future General Ulysses S. Grant described this as a "wicked war" and regretted he did not have the courage to resign over it.  For a great look at this not so small war see Amy Greenberg's A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln, and the U. S. Invasion of Mexico. American troops entering Mexico City has hardly been limited to that war btw. 

4) The Pacific Ocean is an American Ocean. The United States has pushed its weight around in the Pacific nearly from the beginning. The ink was barely dry at Appomattox and the US outright annexed an island in the middle of Pacific most had never heard of, Midway Island (1867).

a) Korea. In 1871, Rear Admiral John Rogers set out to Korea in search of a deal that could not be refused in the manner that Perry had done in Japan in 1853.  The Koreans took umbrage at the US interference and the mission ended in a bloody affair and ill will from the Koreans towards the US for a long time.

b) Samoa. I loved maps as a kid. I still do. I recall wondering how in the world some of these little islands so far away from my little world in Alabama became "U.S. Territories."  One was Samoa!  Samoa is a chain of islands located about half-way between Hawaii and Australia.  In the 19th century European powers were busy expanding their empires and the US got in on the act. Samoa was contested by British, Germans and the Americans.  The US wanted Samoa as a base for the Pacific Squadron. The "natives" were caught between these powers who literally fought a bush war of sorts. In 1889 Britain, Germany and the USA signed a treaty and divided Samoa up but the skirmishes continued till the end of the century. This was for all intents and purposes an outright annexation as happened with Midway. The Germans did not leave Samoa till World War II and the US retains control of the islands to the present.  It was about this time that Congressman Fernando Wood declared "The Pacific Ocean is an American Ocean!"  Even Boot comments on this Samoan affair in these words "Normally this practice is known as imperialism, even though Americans, belonging to a country born of a revolt against an empire, are sensitive about applying this term to their own conduct" (p. 66).  I would add most simply do not know about it at all.

5) The Spanish-American War, 1898.  This war gave us the racist phrase "White Man's Burden."  As a result of the War the USA literally had territories (i.e. colonies???) around the globe: Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippians and other smaller islands that were ceded to the United States.  In 1899 the phrase White Man's Burden was introduced to justify the burden of white america to bring civilization to the barbarian world.  

6) The American-Philippino War, 1899-1913.  The American-Philippino War was an outgrowth of the war with Spain. The Philippians did not want to be colonies of the USA any more than the did Spain.  On Feb 4, 1899 natives "rebelled" against the United States.  Over a hundred thousand US soldiers would participate in this conflict. Most historians estimate the civilian loss of life in this incredibly bloody war near one million and yet your average American has never heard of it!! Though the War was "officially" brought to an end on JULY 4!!!! 1902 (anyone else see an irony with with that!??) armed conflict persisted until 1913 and flared up from time to time until the Japanese invasion.    One enduring, and famous, weapon came out of this conflict.  The legendary 1911 Colt .45 was developed by the US Army in response to bush fighting in the Philippines. President William McKinley said of the fate of the Philippines "I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way ... that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos and uplift them and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the best we could by them, as our own fellowmen for whom Christ also died."  The irony drips ...

7) Russia 1918-1920. One war I never heard of - and I considered myself well read in American military adventures - was the disaster of our military "intervention" in Russia from 1918 to 1920.  This was by all counts a bizarre act of American imperialism. Interestingly enough I learned of this episode from a RUSSIAN back in 1992!!!  I didnt believe him when he told me of the American invasion of Russia - but unbelievably it is true.  The whole stupid war and the ripple affect it continued to have in the Soviet Union and the development of the "Cold War" is chronicled definitively in Robert J. Maddox's The Unknown War with Russia: Wilson's Siberian Intervention.
and in David Foglesong's meticulously researched America's Secret War Against Bolshevism: U.S. Intervention in the Russian Civil War, 1917-1920.  

8) The annexation of Hawaii.  The Kingdom of Hawaii was a sovereign nation but after the Civil War the kingdom became important to American business interests.  In 1887 American planters engineered a revolution of sorts to overthrow the government.  They succeeded but had a set back.  Stephen Dole pushed for the annexation of the islands by the USA and the islands were declared a protectorate in 1893 but was not complete until it was seen that Hawaii was of strategic importance in the War with Spain in 1898.  The islanders had no wish for this but ... by the way the annexation was never officially ratified legally rather what happened was a simple majority vote in Congress was used to legalize the ploy.  In 1900 Hawaii was declared a territory with Dole as governor.  The military played a bloodless role in this affair but imperialism it was and is.  Here is a link to the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

I could go on but the US has been engaged in more war than any other modern nation I can think of.   Most of our little wars have been over money -- determined by big business.  This is a cold hard fact.  This is true of the United States assassination Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 of Iran over oil ... it is impossible to truly understand the events in Iran in the last half century without some knowledge of this American perpetuated murder. This single event as much as anything as convinced the Arab world that the US is both hypocritical and imperialistic -- one wonders if they are wrong.

Concluding Empire Thoughts

How should we react to the incredibly and by necessity selective history of American imperialism? Boot in his conclusion decides "one final bit of advice, based on the lessons of history. In deploying American power, decisionmakers [sic] should be less apologetic, less hesitant, less humble" We should not be afraid to use force to "enlarge the empire of liberty" (p.352).  That is quite a concluding thought to an often insightful book. But I think it is the wrong conclusion. As Boot freely admits that none of these "small wars" were fought for "humanitarian reasons" but largely economic or enhancing our strategic position in the world (p.340).

When we look at American history we realize that it is actually the exception rather than the rule that the US is not at war with someone somewhere.  Now I do not believe that the USA is necessarily the evil Empire that some claim but it is hardly deniable that we have a long history of taking what belonged to others and imposing a life in which they did not choose.  Nor do I believe that we should suddenly look at those in military uniform as imperialists because they are not.  The Marine Corps Small Wars Manual quoted at the top of this blog reveals what is at stake - the military is nothing but the big club the politicians use to get what they want.  The military simply tries to be prepared for what policy makers decide. What we have learned is that politicians have frequently in our history allowed themselves to be influenced by money. In all of these small wars - with huge consequences to this day - the words of David Lipscomb ring true, "The rich use war to make more money. And it is the poor who will kill and be killed."

I think we who claim to be Christian need to have a chastened view of our nation's real role in the history of the modern world. In view of that history I have a hard time embracing many of the myths we Americans have allowed to continue to drive an imperialistic foreign policy.  Does taking off the Rose Colored Glasses mean one is no longer able to say they love their country?? I do not think so ...

Read More

Will Heaven be on Earth or a "pure spiritual existence"?? Reply to a Letter

Not long ago I received an email with a lengthy critique of my views regarding the New Heavens and the New Earth. Some of the material was simply not what I believe and other parts an attempt to critique it biblically. At first I was not going to reply but I chose to do so. I commend my brother and hope my reply will contribute to a greater understanding. I am hoping that further dialogue will take place with closer attention to the relevant themes and texts. I have removed anything that could identify my correspondent

Dear Brother ...

I at first decided not to reply to your essay but it has sort of gnawed at me. I want to commend you for taking the time for thinking about this subject though it will become obvious that I disagree with the light you cast the position in, your interpretation specific texts and regret your lack of interaction with serious scholarly material on the subject, especially contemporary material.

Yet I want to say clearly I have no, absolutely no, desire to get into a debate on this matter with you. I hope to share my thoughts (briefly) on things I would have liked for you to do differently or expand upon. I by no means know all the truth on this or any other subject under the sun so I remain open to teaching and instruction. I relish learning from you but debate or contentiousness I will not participate in. So I will jump right into it ...

First, it is classic ad hominem reasoning to both open and close your piece with attempts to link renewed earth eschatology with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, “denominational writers,” “millennial doctrines” and “wandering off into sectarian ideology.” This is neither helpful nor is it even relevant.

In fact if by “millennial doctrines” you mean premillennialism then the charge is simply false. Renewed earth eschatology was around long before anything looking like the premillennialism of Tim Lahaye and Hal Lindsey. Anthony Hoekema articulates the view nicely while critiquing the dispensational premillennial point of view in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views edited by Robert G. Clouse. Further Alexander Campbell and Jonathan Edwards were hardly premillennialists (of any variety). Neither is John Piper or James Packer. New Earth and premillennialism are separate issues and trying to stick them together is nothing but smoke and mirrors and a condemn by guilt by association tactic.

Second. Perhaps this is an extension of the previous paragraph but I think it needs to be said. I found your characterization of the holders of the renewed earth point of view as having a “carnal mentality” to be a massively unfair judgment that you are unable to make. You and I agree that the pioneers of the Stoned-Campbell Movement are not inspired but but neither are you nor any other source you quote. The inspiration or lack there of is not really the issue however. Yet I have a difficult time saying some one like Alexander Campbell, Robert Milligan, Moses Lard, David Lipscomb or James A. Harding were "carnally minded" men, yet they all held this position. Indeed that seems like a grasping at straws to me. Yet all of these men, and many more, not only believed in the renewed earth but taught it as part of the work of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection. At root here is a skewed definition of what "carnal" and "spiritual" mean from a biblical standpoint.

Alexander Campbell’s essay “Regeneration” in the Millennial Harbinger in 1833 is more than worth your effort to read. It is lengthy running from p.337 to p.384. If you do not have access to it I will be glad to mail it to you. This is healthy biblical theology from a man who has discerned the difference between Plato and Scripture.

On the "materiality" that is still very "spiritual" I point to the deep biblical understanding that David Lipscomb had. Lipscomb writes in Salvation from Sin:

“The object of God’s dealing with man, and especially the mission of Christ to earth, was to rescue the world from the rule and dominion of the evil one, from the ruin into which it had fallen through sin, and to rehabilitate it with the dignity and the glory it had when it came from the hand of God” (David Lipscomb, Salvation from Sin, p.114, see the entire essay “The Ruin and Redemption of the World” but esp. pp. 115, 117, 126-128; Check out p.137).

In his commentary on Romans, Lipscomb comments on the meaning of “creation” in 8.19ff. “The ‘creation’ here means the world, embracing all animated nature below man. (p. 152). Later he writes, “then the whole creation will share this deliverance and be freed from the corruption and mortality to which it has been subjected by the sin of man. It shared the corruption and the mortality of man’s sin, and will share his deliverance from it” (p. 153).

Many, many, more paragraphs can be produced from Lipscomb and many from Harding. Knowing what I know about these men I can safely say they were anything but "carnally minded" men. For more on Lipscomb and Harding I recommend the study I published with John Mark Hicks at Lipscomb University called “Kingdom Come: Embracing the Spiritual Legacy of David Lipscomb and James Harding” (Leafwood Press, 2006).

Third, I have to ask, in light of your understanding of "carnal", what the resurrection of Jesus (and our own) is really all about? Was Jesus’ resurrection a “spiritual” or a “bodily” (i.e. "carnal") resurrection? Your closing statement about a “purely spiritual environment” honestly sounds like Gnosticism rather than biblical Christianity. From my own study of the Scriptures I have concluded just the opposite of you. I used to conceive of heaven as a “purely spiritual environment” … of course I think I used the word “spiritual” to mean “immaterial,” which I now think is not only unbiblical but antibiblical. But with such conception the resurrection has no "real" place. Campbell said it well,

“Immortality, in the sacred writings, is never applied to the spirit of man. It is not the doctrine of Plato which the resurrection of Jesus is a proof and pledge … Jesus was not a spirit when he returned to God. He is not made the Head of the New Creation as a Spirit, but as the Son of Man … By the word of his power he created the heavens and the earth; by the word of his grace he reanimates the soul of man; and by the word of his power he will again form our bodies anew, and reunite the spirit and the body in the bonds of an incorruptible and everlasting union.” (MH, 1833, p. 359).

Do we believe that the body comes out of the grave. Paul says that our bodies are to be redeemed—not simply our spirit, Rom 8.23.

Fourth, I wish you would have spent more time with some specific texts. Isaiah 65.17ff you assert refers only to the messianic age of Jesus. But E. J. Young (Isaiah, vol 3. pp. 512ff) suggests it goes beyond that. This is the understanding of most OT scholars. Indeed the very notion that material creation is somehow ‘unspiritual’ needs serious thought. One of the most informative studies I have ever read is by Terence Fretheim called “God and World in the Old Testament” (Abingdon 2005). This is a very lively yet thorough introduction to nearly every passage that speaks of creation and the world in the Hebrew Scriptures. I highly recommend it (with the usual caveat that I do not endorse everything he concludes. Never the less it is a great book).

Returning to Romans 8. This is indeed a profound passage but hardly obscure as you wish. In fact I believe it is crystal clear and in total harmony with the Hebrew Bible, the rest of the NT, and the Jewish “hope” that pervaded second temple Judaism. I know you are a studious man so I recommend N.T. Wright. Wright is without a doubt on of the most influential New Testament scholars of the current generation. He has many works that are both extremely technical and others that you can nearly use in a Bible class. In his book The New Testament and the People of God (Fortress Press) Wright goes to amazing lengths to place the NT in its first century context. He does this to take on the real liberals of the Jesus Seminar and the new Gnostic teachers who make Jesus into something he could never have been. At any rate Wright’s chapter “The Hope of Israel” is essential reading (pp. 280-338). This chapter is expanded in many other works he has published since. (again I don’t agree with everything Wright says but he is incredibly stimulating). C.E.B. Cranfield’s commentary on Romans (among many) is outstanding and his exposition of Rom 8 is worth looking at.

Your treatment of 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21 I also found wanting. But I have by now gone on for to long.

Before I close, I would have like to see you interact with some outstanding resources that have a different point of view that are hardly sensational or leaving the anchor of the Bible.

Ben Witherington, Jesus and Paul and the End of the World (IVP, 1992)
Albert Wolters, Creation Regained (Eerdmans 1985)
Michael Wittmer, Heaven is a Place on Earth (Zondervan 2004)
Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Tyndale 2004)

If I know my own heart then I can safely deny I am carnally minded as you seem to understand that term. But I am convinced that the Old and New Testaments teach that satan did not win, even a fraction of God's good creation - seen or unseen. God is in the process of redeeming his entire creation to bring glory to himself. Colossians I am certain makes this claim for the work of the Crucified One. The words for salvation in the Bible all point to this conclusion too: redeem; restore; recover; renew; regenerate; reconcile … all of these words point to a return or a bringing back.

I hope that I have not been offensive in anything I have said in this letter. Even if you never agree with me I will hold you in high regard. I simply believe that the renewed earth point of view has far more going for it than what you let on.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

David Lipscomb, Proper Translation & Rebaptism

The following article, “The Revised Testament and Rebaptism,” appeared in the Gospel Advocate near the end of David Lipscomb’s career. It is significant in showing the continuity of his rejection of rebaptism throughout his life. I will place in parenthesis () when the text moves onto p. 922. The brackets [] are in the original article. The "Common Version" is the KJV, the Revised Version is the 1881 revision, the American edition is known as the American Standard Version 1901. The American Bible Union was an organization that sought to replace the faulty KJV. Campbell, and many others were deeply involved in this organization. [sic] means that is the way it appears in the article. I have previously shared Lipscomb's more systematic debunking of the "rebaptist" error here: Rebaptism Reviewed.

DAVID LIPSCOMB, "THE REVISED TESTAMENT AND REBAPTISM," Gospel Advocate 55 (September 25, 1913): 921-922.

"The expression 'for the remission of sins' is used in the Common Version of the Scriptures. Of the cup he said: 'This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.' (Matt. 26:28). 'John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.' (Mark 1:4) Luke 3:3 gives the same. 'And thou, child [John the Baptist], shalt . . . go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins.' (Luke 1: 76,77). 'Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.' (Luke 24:46, 47). 'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Chirst [sic] for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.' (Acts 2: 38). 'Whom [Jesus] God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." (Rom. 3:25). "Without shedding of blood is no remission.' (Heb. 9:22).

Baptism is said to be 'for the remission of sins' in the Common Version. 'John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.' (Mark 1:4). Luke 3:3 gives the same. Peter told the people: 'Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

In the Revised Version, the expression, "Be baptized [or anything else man can do] for the remission of sins,' is not found. In that version the participles, prepositions, and other secondary words have been more carefully translated, and the American Revised Version is regarded by those competent to judge, the best version or translation [p.922] in the language. The Revised Version translates 'for the remission of sins,' in each of these cases, 'unto the remission of sins.' The difference in the meaning is, 'for the remission of sins' suggests the idea that the baptism is to pay for remitting the sins as a man pays for a horse. It is giving value received; that we are entitled to if for the service rendered. The human heart is prone to run to this extreme. The proneness to run to this extreme has caused God to especially guard against permitting it in any of his dealings with man. Even Moses, the meekest of men, was uplifted with personal pride, took to himself the honor of giving blessings which belonged only to God and forfeited an entrance in the land of Canaan. (Ex. 17:1) In Deut. 9:4, God through Moses, gives the Jews the terrible warning that he does not give them the land of Canaan on account of their merits, but on account of the wickedness of those he drove out. It is such a sin to assume to merit the blessings God bestows that no encouragement to the position in doubtful translation should be given.

To be baptized into Christ, into the name of Christ, teaches plainly and truly that in entering into Christ we come to and enjoy the remission of sins: because of and by virtue of our entrance and union with Christ, we become children of God. This is the expressive
declaration that we are saved by the blood of Christ, and not because we have been baptized for the remission of sins -- a selfish end. To be baptized into Christ is an expressive declaration that baptism is the step, the last step a man takes in entering Christ. So when he is baptized, he is entitled to all the privileges of a child of God -- to all the blessings that oneness with Christ, our Lord, brings. The only sense in which baptism is 'for the remission of sins' is, it is the act appointed by God to test our faith, and the act that puts one into Christ, in whom we enjoy all the blessings and favors of the redeeming and purifying Son of God. The English Version of the revised text gives the same translation of the word that the American Revision does. The expression, 'for the remission of sins,' as connected with what man does or can do, is not found in the book. The translation made by the Bible Union in 1879 agrees with these. This translation forbids the idea that man pays for or purchases the remission of sins. It harmonizes with and carries out the idea that we come into union with Christ, are made one with him, and in and by him we are justified.

Take it from the standpoint that the leading thought is, we are baptized into Christ and made a member of his body, explains things that need explanation. Our rebaptist friends maintain, rightly, that the belief of the things not true in connection wit h the mission of Christ could not secure the forgiveness of sins. To this we heartily agree, and say the belief of the errors we all (rebaptists and others) hold could not secure the remission of sins. We must be in a state or condition that we will be saved in spite of the evil influences of our many mistakes and errors. What is that state or condition? Our rebaptist brethren practically say, to believe and understand that baptism is for the remission of sins cures the evil of ignorance and doubt.

There is a ground on which we may believe God accepts us and gives us assurance of richest blessings despite the darkness and mistakes of our hearts. That ground is, we become members of the body of Christ and are one with him, enter into Christ, appropriate the blood of Christ, and thankfully receive him, who can cleanse and bless and save us. Our service puts us into a partnership with Jesus, by which he becomes as one of us, and appropriates and cleanses us from all sins, despite a thousand errors that on subsidiary questions we may hold. On the one side, it is Jesus Christ, with his blood covering the many mistakes and errors by us; one with the power on his side of pardon and union and peace with God. On the same side there is the sinner baptized into Jesus Christ, clothed with his name, mistaking the point at which God promises to forgive sins, just as a man going from Kentucky from Tennessee may mistake the time and place of crossing the line. The mistake does not affect his rights after he has entered the State.

There is but one example of rebaptism given to us in the Bible. That was not to teach us baptism is into the remission of sins, but to teach us we must be baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. In him is pardon and peace to the sinner. I had much prefer following the example of Paul and rebaptize those who had not understandingly been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. 'And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.' (Acts 19:5). When a man is baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, he has a strong Brother and helper in the Lord that can rescue him from man errors and mistakes."

Read More

Rebaptism Reviewed ... David Lipscomb

What follows below is a reproduction of David Lipscomb's article "Rebaptism Reviewed." The article is a response to "Brother Chism" who defended rebaptism. This is one of Lipscomb's fullest discussions of the subject. He takes us on a tour of the examples of baptism in the Book of Acts following a thorough examination of Acts 2.38 and the Great Commission. I think this article is significant enough to simply reproduce it in toto and Lipscomb explain the rational (exegetical and theological) for rejecting rebaptism.


Rebaptism Reviewed
David Lipscomb
Gospel Advocate, December 12, 1907, pp. 992- 793

I am glad to have this article from Brother Chism. He presents the points in a clear and tangible form so they can be understood. I believe the question ought to and can be settled with all who desire to follow the will of the Lord and are willing to study and abide by his teachings.

Some object to the name “rebaptism.” It is a reimmersion. The twelve at Ephesus were rebaptized, I believe persons ought to be rebaptized sometimes, and I call it “rebaptism.” I am glad of Brother Chism’s article because it places the practice on a ground that does not savor of infidelity. I feel shocked when professed Christians ask where the Bible says we must be baptized to obey God. It shows how little they know the Bible or how ready they are to sacrifice the fundamental principles of the Bible to sustain a pet theory or a party.

Brother Chism justifies the rebaptism practice on the ground that “for the remission of sins” is in the sentence, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” is part of the command, and this seems to be the chief ground on which he bases the practice. I believe “into” is preferable to “for,” but he seems to prefer “for.” But if “eis” or “for” here is a part of the command, what becomes of the argument that it means “in order to obtain,” that Brother Chism and others make on the design of baptism with the sects? If it is a reward for obedience to the command, it cannot be a part of the command. That argument or his position is all wrong. It cannot be at once a part of the command and a reward for obedience to the command. Webster defines “for:” “the antecedent cause or occasion of an action; the motive or inducement leading to an action.” It cannot be the antecedent cause of an action and the action itself. It cannot be the promise as a result of the obedience and the obedience itself. It is a promise to lead to obedience, and not the obedience itself. I believe it should be “into” indicating a result flowing from the act, so only indirectly a motive leading to it. There is certainly nothing in the sentence that demands it should be part of the command.

If there is uncertainty about it, let us test in another safe way. Let us interpret it by other similar scriptures. Take Acts 3:19: “Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted from the presence of the Lord.” No one would say “that your sins may be blotted out” is a part of the command. It is a result to which obedience to the command leads. It is the same as “for remission of sins” in Acts 2:38. “That your sins may be blotted out,” or remitted, or forgiven, mean the same. The forgiveness is the act of God, and man cannot obey or do God’s part in any work. He can only “repent and be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Christ;” and leave God to forgive his sins when has complied with God’s requirements.

These suggestions are a full reply to Brother Chism’s points. But I examine further. He says the command, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” is the exact equivalent of the commission given by the Lord. This is wrong. It is the application of that general law to one special case, and it is a mistake to interpret and restrict the general law by one special application of it. Numbers of our rebaptist friends ignore the commission altogether and find the law only in this application of it. (Acts 2:28). God first gave the law and then the application of it. Brother Chism reverses God’s order, passes by the general law, begins with one special application of it, and then restricts the law to this one application. This is as if a lawyer were to find a man tried for stealing a horse. The general law against stealing is applied by the court to this one of horse stealing, and the lawyer ever afterwards restricts the law against stealing to this one case and insists that the law is not violated unless a horse is stolen. Brother Chism finds the first application of the law was to sinners guilty of the blood of the Son of God, and in their guilt they ask if pardon is possible, and they are told: “Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and your sins shall be remitted.” To be baptized in the name of Christ is to be baptized as Christ directs – “into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” for in them remission of sins, which they so earnestly sought, would be found. But is that the only blessing that is to be found in these names that can or should move men to seek God?

But Acts 2:38 is the commission applied to that particular case. Mark (16:15,16) says: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.” Is “shall be saved” a part of the command in this case? Is it an obligation imposed upon man? Does not the obligation on man end with being baptized, and is not his being saved the work of God? Is it not a promise to man to encourage him, in his weakness and infirmity, to believe and be baptized? Brother Chism will not contradict this. Does not “be saved” correspond exactly to “for [or into”] the remission of sins?” (Acts 2:38) There is no command in remission of sins to men, but a promise of what God will do.

The commission by Matthew is: “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you.” This is applied in Acts 2:38 to the condition of those present. The people were taught, believed, were commanded to be baptized in the name of Christ, into the remission of sins. To be baptized in the name of Christ is to be baptized “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” because that is the only baptism Christ authorized. When they are baptized into these names, they are baptized into the remission of sins. Into these names, embracing remission of sins in common with all spiritual blessings, are results flowing from the obedience and constitute no part of obedience. These different promises mean the same and cannot be a part of the obedience.

I think Brother Chism must agree to these points so far, and own “for remission” is a promise to lead to obedience. It is not the only promise. Other promises in Christ may lead as well as this one.

We both agree that remission of sins is a motive to lead to obedience. He seems to think it is the only motive, or at least the leading and essential motive to lead to baptism, and without this as the leading and controlling motive the baptism is not acceptable to God. I do not believe this. I believe there is one motive that in all service to God, without which no service is acceptable to him. That is, we must do the service in the name of Jesus, the Lord. “Whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Gal. 3:17) All Jesus did in heaven and on earth was done to please his Father. Nothing can be done in his name that is not controlled by the same desire. The law was: Be baptized “into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” This is frequently expressed by “in” or “into” “the name of the Lord Jesus.” To be in one of these names or persons is to be in all. In Christ are many blessings: no human being can know all. God has revealed a few that appeal to our conditions here. Some blessings appeal to one person, another to another, owing to the conditions of the persons. Acts 2:38 is not the only application of this commission to the conditions of man.

Take the case of the Samaritans. They had been wicked: the Jews despised them and refused to let them worship with them; but despite their surroundings, they were willing to obey God. The heart of the Almighty is very tender toward those unfortunately situated but willing to obey him. Those who fail to see this are ill fitted to understand and obey God. God sent his servant to the Samaritans. “When they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” In the name of Jesus remission of sins was enjoyed but in his name and kingdom are many other precious blessings.

Then there is the Ethiopian eunuch. He was a God-fearing man. He hade come several hundred miles to worship God according to his appointments. He was studying God’s word. God was so well pleased with him that he sent his servant to teach him the way of the Lord more perfectly. He preached Jesus to him. He asked and was baptized into Christ. I do not think “for remission of sins” was made prominent in this conversion, because he was serving God according to the best light he had and was guilty of no great sin.

Then Cornelius was a Gentile, a good man according to the light he had. He worshiped God. Peter said he feared God and worked righteousness; that commended him to the favor of God, who sent his angel to him. His alms and his prayers were treasured as a memorial before God. Peter told him he was out of Christ, out of God, and he was “baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” Was much stress laid on “the remission of sins” in this case? He was baptized in the name of Christ, to obey God. Brother Chism, if you had been there, could you have objected to receiving Cornelius unless “remission of sins” was the present and controlling motive in his baptism? The very same Peter that told the bloody handed murderers to be baptized “for remission of sins” tells Cornelius to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ,” and said nothing of remission of sins. Why the difference?

Then those at Ephesus. (Acts 19:1-7) They were serving God according to the best light they had, had been baptized into John’s baptism, “for the remission of sins.” They had not learned that John’s baptism had been superseded by baptism into the name of Christ. When they heard these things, “they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.”

No emphasis was laid on “for remission” in these cases, but great emphasis on “into the name of the Lord Jesus,” as prescribed by the commission. The law was applied to suit the condition of the person. The apostles did not believe that stealing a horse was the only stealing that could be done nor that remission of sins is the only motive to lead men to obey God. Why are not all these applications of the case as much for our instruction as Acts 2:38? Why is not the command to be baptized into Christ, into the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit, as much the command of God as “for remission of sins?” Why is it not as important that men understand baptism is into Christ as to understand it is for the remission of sins? If we follow the Bible up, we find that in the writings to the churches and to Christians the emphasis is laid on having been baptized into Christ, having put on Christ, and living, dying and being raised in Christ.

There are now cases corresponding in state to these cases of conversion in Acts. I could mention many. The girl mentioned by Brother Holt that had likely, like Timothy, known the Scriptures from a child, wished to obey Christ, but not oppressed with the guilt of sin, she had not studied that point. Would the Father reject her because she wanted to follow Christ in her innocency [sic] and her youth?

While man is to love and trust God because God is good and blesses those that do his will, the idea that we must know what we are to get for and in each service, and that our service is acceptable only as we understand and render the obedience for the blessings we are to get, is repulsive to God. Abraham was the great model of faith for all future generations of the world. He followed God from his father’s home not knowing whither he went or what he would receive. In the service that was most pleasing to God, the offering of his son as a sacrifice, which secured the promise, “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Abraham obeyed without a promise whether any blessing would be received. The obedience seemed to defeat the promise that God would of his son make a mighty nation. The anti-type of Abraham’s offering of his son was God offered his only Son to die for the world. This is continually held up as the great example given to man to follow. It places the truth beyond all controversy that God is pleased with the service that is rendered him at great sacrifice, from love of him, without any promise of blessing. Job said: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” That is the service God loves. We have other thoughts along this line we wish to offer.

D. L.

Read More

Fellowship? A Spiritual Means of Grace, The Distant Voice of James A. Harding

It is important to note that spirituality for James A. Harding was not simply some privatized religion. For him spirituality had deep moments of encounter with God that was quite "public." Spirituality was how one came to know and experience the “most loving Father in the Universe.” Thus “fellowship” was listed, following Acts 2.42, as his second in his “means of grace.”

Fellowship was more than simply agreement on some doctrinal issue. Rather as supplying the needs of others, especially the poor and oppressed. He truly believed that “fellowship” was the ideal word for this means of grace because it was “partnership” and “sharing” in the “great firm in which Christ is the head and every Christian is a member.”

Theologically Harding believed this means of grace must come after the first one. It is only after, he believed, one has come to know the loving and gracious God who shares and suffers with his creation that we will have the faith to “share” in the ministry of giving. As we become more like the Christ we encounter in the Word the more we will take on the world’s burdens through our giving of our time, means and lives. Harding’s advice was that the only way to become wealthy was to give away (share) what one has to the poor.

“As we read the promises of God to those who give, nothing but a lack of faith will prevent us from becoming more generous and whole-hearted in his service. Giving in God’s service is not squandering the means for your support in old age or sickness; it is rather a sowing from which you may expect to reap a big harvest, when the need comes, if you have sown liberally.”

For Harding the starting place for any disciple of Jesus was the tithe. But one who drank from the Spirit of giving would soon be dissatisfied with a mere tithe. He writes,

“You will no longer be content with giving a tenth; soon you will give fifteen cents on the dollar - then twenty, twenty-five, and so on; for you will find that the more you give, the more you will have to give, and the more good you can do, and the more the name of God will be glorified in you.”

We must not make the mistake that Harding simply advocated giving so that one may get a return on a slot machine. We give because in so doing we become a partner (i.e. have fellowship in his mission) with Jesus in ministering to those in need . . . And we also, ironically, identify with Christ because Jesus said he was with the poor.

In the language of his partner in this line of thought, David Lipscomb. What follows is interesting language but captures a central insight of this stream of spirituality among Churches of Christ.

“Christ is personified in his poor, helpless brethren. Matt xxv.40. In them, Christ appeals for help to himself. Who realizes this? . . . Let us realize that every helpless, needy one of our brethren is the personification of Christ to us appealing for help. He is our Christ, to be kindly welcomed and generously treated. Shall we cast our Christ from our doors and let him become a beggar from others? Let us be careful, ‘Verily I say unto you inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.’”

Christians, argued Harding and Lipscomb, take on the nature of Christ in this “means of grace.” How so? Because as Christ “emptied” himself and identified with the poor of the world Christians “empty” themselves on behalf of the masses. Hear the language of kenosis:

“We must sacrifice our luxuries, our comforts, our wealth and pride, to relieve our brother’s distresses, just as Christ sacrificed his honors, glories, joys and possessions in heaven, to help . . . This was the fellowship of God to man. I will give of my honors and joys to you, and take of your weaknesses, sufferings, and sorrows to myself, is the language of Jesus to man . . . Our fellowship for one another must be of this character. I’ll give of my plenty, and partake of your privations and self-denials, is the language of Christian fellowship.”

Fellowship is a means of grace because it is in this way we take on the actual character of Jesus of Nazareth. It is a double means of grace. On the one hand God uses us to be his instrument of mercy while we share in the ministry of Jesus. This has a life transforming effect upon us. Our values, hearts, thoughts, lives and money are molded into that of Jesus. On the other hand it is also a means of grace because we ironically identify with the Christ who has become one with the destitute of the world. Harding and Lipscomb taught that Jesus so lived with the poor that the poor WAS Christ. It was through such a fellowship that a disciple truly learned who Jesus is. Perhaps we could benefit from their insight into "fellowship."

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Kingdom Come Exposed: Unknown Tongue of Theobabble

Today is Halloween. And as is fitting for the spirit of the day my good friend Lee Freeman has sent me a treat (or was it a trick?). He gets a little paper in the mail called Christianity Then & Now that is published here in Arizona. I have never seen the paper before but I was able to find it online. The editor of the paper is John Waddey who I believe was at one time associated with East Tennessee School of Preaching (but I am not sure about this). At anyrate the reason Lee forwarded this to me was because of the article "Speaking in the Unknown Tongue of Theobabble" which mentions John Mark Hicks and myself as authors of Kingdom Come. Let me quote from the opening paragraphs to get the flavor.

Speaking in the Unknown Tongue of Theobabble

In Corinth, misinformed and misguided brethren insisted on speaking in the assembly of the church in a tongue unknown to their hearers (I Cor 14:2,9). Paul insisted that he would rather speak five words understood by his audience than 10,000 words in an unknown tongue (I Cor. 14:19).

Among the fellowship of change agents at work among churches of Christ are highly educated theologians who prefer to speak in a strange tongue spoken and understood by only a select few who inhabit seminaries or who were educated there. It is the exotic language of theobabble [sic].

In their recent book, Kingdom Come, Dr. John Mark Hicks, Professor of Theology at David Lipscomb University, and Bobby Valentine, a Master of Divinity, illustrate the use of theobabble. Below are some classic examples of this exotic language:

"Their vision was antagonistic toward modernity in significant ways-especially the inbreaking kingdom of God" (p. 16).

"Living in the shadows of the second coming meant that God was profoundly active in this world to redeem and restore it. God takes the initiative to repair the 'vandalism of shalom' in creation" (p. 32) ...

"There are many methods and resources for contemplative Bible reading ... but one of the most classic and ancient is the Benedictine method of lectio divina (divine reading)(p. 89)." ...

"Unlike many modern westerners, the Old Testament sees humanity as a psychosomatic unity" (p. 133).

" ... the Jesus story begins with a 'pentad of prayers.'"(p. 134)

There is much more of this lectio divina to be interpreted in light of the eschaton, but this illustrates my point.

The authors' theological peers read such fluffy, opaque phrases and congratulate them on their scholarship. Their students read them, awed at the brilliance of a professor who uses such spectacular, incomprehensible terms. The man and woman in the pew who hears or reads them, scratches his/her head and wonders what in the world are the authors trying to say? They ask, 'What language is he speaking?' To accept the conclusions drawn from such theobabble is as dangerous as the signing of a binding legal contract without reading and comprehending the fine print thereof. JHW." (Christianity Then & Now {October 2007}, 2)

The only parts omitted here of this "review" are a few more illustrative quotes for theobabble. I have to be honest beloved blog readers, when I read this I thought to myself that if I was one of John's regular readers I would be insulted! Does he imagine that the people in the pew are so ignorant that they can not use vocabulary beyond elementary school?

I have no doubt that Kingdom Come is not a perfect book. But if these quotes are the weakest link in the book then I must confess that John Mark and I did a better job than I had previously imagined. Since Lee is a good sport he also sent page 3 of the October issue of Christianity Then & Now. On that page John Waddey recommends an old book by Harold Lindsell called The New Paganism. In light of his attack upon KC what he quotes from this volume is most interesting.

"[Lindsell] reminds us that 'the public education processes at all levels, function in full accord with the pagan Weltanschauung and [sic] Zeitgeist ..."

Ok, I am scratching my head on this one. Then John quotes Lindsell as saying "It is at the higher collegiate and seminary levels where the major problems exist." What a prejudicial statement.

Returning to Kingdom Come. In the previous two congregations I have served (Southside in Milwaukee and PV here in Tucson) the saints have had no problem reading and understanding the book. Wayne and Bruce, fine elders if there ever were any, I guess speak theobabble too. May be it is not because they were educated in a seminary but because they let their minds grow.

I looked up each illustrative quote cited by John and I believe the meaning of each one is clear in its setting. Shalom is a biblical word brother Waddey, not only is it biblical it is incredibly important, and everybody knows what "vandalism" is. Where a truly new term is introduced, like lectio divina, it is defined and explained. But you know what, I grew up in a congregation where neither the preacher nor anyone else had a clue what Greek was but eis, psallo and baptizo were thrown around a lot and no one ever rebuked the preacher for theobabble.

I took the time to look at a few of John's other reviews online and have noticed a similar pattern exhibited in this one. There is zero substance in this piece. One would hope for a substantive critique but alas we got a hatchet job ... I guess in that sense it is really a trick then, :-)

I wish Brother Waddey well but I would rather see a good critical review like that of Gardner Hall's. I have kept Gardner's, I put John's in the recycle bin.

Shalom ... I mean peace,
Bobby Valentine

Read More