Jesus' Mission; Our Mission, and the Logic of Grace

The Jesus Pattern

As we read through the Gospels a striking "pattern" dances gently across the pages of the life of Jesus. The most unsavory people are attracted to him wherever he went. We see a Samaritan lady, a mercenary hoodlum of Herod, a hostess to seven demons, a few tax collectors, and a woman caught in the very act of sexual misconduct. It is quite shocking actually!

In stark contrast Jesus received a very cold shoulder from the the religious "church-going" folk. The pious (and they were!) Pharisees thought him uncouth and even worldly, a wealthy young ruler walked away shaking his head in dismay, and even the open-minded Nicodemus seeks the shelter of the night lest he be seen talking to Jesus.

What is even stranger still is today the "pattern" seems markedly reversed. The Christian church now attracts respectable types who closely resemble the very folks who despised Jesus in his own day; while the folks who flocked to Jesus are hard to find and want nothing to do with us. What has happened to reverse the "pattern"? Why don't "sinners" like being around us today?


Jesus' Mission

Somehow we have created a community of respectability in the "church." The down and out no longer seem to feel welcome in our assemblies. How did Jesus, the most holy person in the history of the world, manage to attract such notoriously flawed people? And what keeps us from following his steps? These are questions I believe we must ask, and face, if we are to be the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus understood his mission. He knew why he was here and that helped him "keep focused." We, the Body of Christ, are to have the same focus as the Head. But what was the focus of the mission of Jesus Christ?

The Gospels are fairly clear. Jesus, in the synagogue in his own hometown, delivered a "homily" on Isaiah 61. During worship he read a portion of the prophecy, it reads ...

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners,
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the Year of the Lord's favor" (Lk 4.18-19)

Jesus declares that this prophecy fulfilled even as the congregation heard it (v. 21). But the Spirit of the Lord came on Jesus for a specific reason, to empower him for a task, to give him a "mission." This text is programmatic for the Gospel of Luke. The Year of Jubilee ... the Sabbath of Sabbaths ... is front and center for the mission of Jesus. We might ask who are the poor, just as the rich man asked "who is my neighbor?" But the poor, the blind, oppressed are surely central for a church that claims allegiance to the mission of Jesus. Jesus' mission is to lead these captives in a new exodus to freedom, redemption and life.

Jesus' mission, as defined by himself, was to liberate the down and out people. His mission was to was a mission of mercy. His mission was to set the captives free. Notice none of the people targeted by Jesus were the respectable people with money and power, those who had it all figured out, none that were in control. The people addressed in this text are simply nobodies like those in Moses' original exodus ...

Jesus knew his mission to be the embodiment of Jubilee. The question for us is do we understand that our mission is the same as his? Jesus came to heal the world. To set the Jeffrey Dahmers of Tucson free. Jesus came to serve those in their third ... yes even fourth or fifth marriage! Jesus saw his task as that of a doctor (Lk 5.31f). He came to bring slaves out of bondage. He came to banish the suffering that vandalized God's good creation - the blind, the exploited, the humble. He even came to rescue me!

Some may think "Bobby there was more to Jesus' mission than this." I don't think so. Everything Jesus said or did in those wonder years on earth was to accomplish what he says right here in Luke 4. We have confirmation of this in numerous passages in the Gospels.

In Luke 7, John the Baptizer was thrown in prison with his life hanging on by a thread. He sends a fact finding crew to Jesus with a list of questions ... "have I made a mistake" (see v.20). The response of Jesus to the Baptizer is enlightening. It is remarkably similar to his sermon in 4.18f. Luke describes the situation in this way:

At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sickness and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind? So he replied to the messengers, 'Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor" (7.21-22)

John's question was "are you really the Messiah?" Jesus' response was "look at what the Spirit of the Lord has anointed me to do." The new age has dawned, the new exodus of setting the captives free is in full swing. This mission is why Jesus was friends with sinners. This is why unsavory folk liked to be around him. This is why the respectable church going crowd were put off ... why they held their councils and why they branded him as a false prophet and eventually murdered him!

Luke reveals a Jesus hardly threatened by a person's so called "uncleanness." He reached out with his Word incarnated hands and embraced the unsavory with love and compassion. He talked to them. He listened to them. He touched them. He sat with them. He ate with them. He was seen with them. He loved them. He was on their side. This was his mission. Jesus brought the Good News of liberation, redemption, and wholeness to the folks the religious folks held at arms length. The Pharisees, the Essenes, the Sadducees all said in one way or another "you are not good enough." You are not clean enough. You do not have the right pedigree. You have tattoos. Your clothes are not proper. You are from the wrong side of town. You are the wrong color. We really haven't decided why but you still can't come!

Jesus of Nazareth smashed ALL of that! This situation was not of Moses btw! He led a mission of liberation for outcasts too! But Jesus said to the ones with no pedigree, the ones with no power or influence, the "sinners" of all stripes ... the God of Israel has NOT REJECTED YOU. The Father has sent me to proclaim his special favor on even you.

Sometimes we, like the church folk of Jesus day, we erect hurdles and barriers to God's grace. Certain tests have to be met before we welcome them. C. S. Lewis once remarked "prostitutes are in no danger of finding their present life so satisfactory that they cannot turn to God: the proud, the avaricious, the self-righteous, are in danger of that."

The "Logic" of Grace

Jesus' mission was one of grace to all. The mission of the Year of Jubilee was a rescue mission. We cannot really be too concerned with our own personal safety when on a rescue mission - it is inherently dangerous. This is how the Son of God ended upon a Tree. It wasn't the so called "sinners" who crucified the Son of Man! It was the elders, the deacons, and the Sunday School teachers who killed him!!

The church is the "body of Christ." Our mission is the same as Jesus'. Luke picks up on this theme from Jesus' "personal" ministry and shows how it is the mission of the Gathered People in in the book of Acts. There were no "needy" in the Jerusalem church. The assembly of God welcomed eunuchs and even unclean "Gentiles" The old way said "no undesirable people allowed" And Jesus said "come unto me all who are weary and burdened ..."

The early church struggled to follow the "Logic of Grace" exhibited in the Messiah. After some training in the ways of God they became renown in the Roman Empire for their support for the poor and suffering. The Christians, unlike many, readily ransomed their brothers and sisters from "barbarian" captors, and when the plagues hit, the Christians tended the suffering even as the world abandoned them. The early church took the mission of Jesus as their mission -- to receive strangers, to clothe the naked, to feed the hungry, and to visit the ones in prison. These were not ancillary ministries of the kingdom ... they WERE the thrust the kingdom of God into a world needing redemption.

Recently I have tried to picture the scene from Jesus' day. The poor. The sick. The sinners. The prostitutes. They all crowed around the picture of purity and holiness stirred by his message of healing, forgiveness and wholeness. The rich. The powerful. The Bible thumpers. The righteous. They are all gathered on the perimeter snorting in derision. They test his doctrinal soundness. They spy. They try to trap him in some debate on doctrinal minutia. I know these facts about Jesus' time, and yet, from the comfort of a middle class church in a wildly rich country like the United States, I easily lose sight of the real core of Jesus mission ... which is his message. I looked in my mind's eye, and to my consternation, I found myself among the church-goers of Jesus' day instead of loving and offering forgiveness to those who desperately need it. And I confess that I desperately need it!

If we are to be the Church OF Jesus we can see no undesirable human. The Logic of Grace is that God loves the poor. The suffering. The persecuted. The outcast. The divorcee. The misguided. Even, thankfully, the Sunday school teacher and preacher! If we dare to place the name of Jesus upon our buildings then we need to be rooted in his mission. Jesus challenges us to look at the world through what the early Christian, Irenaeus, termed "grace-healed eyes!" With Grace-healed eyes we begin to see the world through the Logic of Grace defined in the Mission of Jesus himself ... only then are we really the church of Jesus the Messiah.

Read More

Jonah #9: God's Heart & His Struggle with Israel & Us (The Wrath of the Theologian)

The Wrath of the Theologian: 4.1-6

"Deliverance belongs to the LORD" (Jonah 2.9, NRSV)

Most Shocking Chapter in the Bible

If truth is to be confessed then we admit Jonah chapter four is one of the most shocking chapters in the entire canon of Scripture! Here in this chapter the blindness, arrogance, and possibly even the blackness of Jonah's heart is finally revealed. At the same time we have to confess that Jonah 4 is truly one of the most comforting chapters in the canon because of the revelation of Yahweh there.

In Jonah 4 the "Wrath of the Theologian" is on display in all its ugliness. The Dove, Jonah and the People he represents, was convinced he had the word of God understood in precisely the manner in which God intended ... every Christian that values neat and tight systems can sympathize with Jonah.

As our chapter opens the Minstrel brings together for the first and only time two words that he uses with frequency throughout the story: great and evil. He brings them together precisely when the Dove witnesses Yahweh's mercy for those who clearly do not deserve it. Such mercy becomes a great evil. If we remember the mirror, parallel, structure of the book we see that Jonah's actions are in stark contrast to the "horrible" pagan sailors in 1.16. While a yire'ah gedolah et-YHWH (a great fear of the LORD) overwhelmed the pagans in light of God's salvation of Jonah, a ra'ah gedolah (a great evil) swamped the Dove as he (i.e. God's People) witnessed the magnitude of God's gracious love! DO NOT SUGAR COAT, DO NOT MINIMIZE, DO NOT SWEEP UNDER THE RUG ... what the narrator is putting on display here. Jonah hates how God has been true to his own word yet in a way that makes Jonah look like a fool in his own eyes!! God did overturn Nineveh! Yet Jonah, God's own people, the church!!, is sitting in judgment on Yahweh himself. Let it flow over us ...

Invitation to Stop, Reflect & Retrace Our Steps

Our singing Minstrel drops the bomb on us so to speak in 4.2. For the first time we are told why the Dove flew. Two things happen as the verse opens that take us back. First, Jonah explains his flight quoting the heart of Israel's Gospel creed ... it is as if the narrator says "Now go back and reread 1.1-3.10 in light of 4.2!" Second, Jonah's prayer "Is this not what I said while I was still in my own country" ... has strong linguistic and verbal echoes to Israel's rebellious cry in Exodus 14.12 to Moses, "Is this not the very thing we told you in Egypt." Yahweh follows up such rebellion with the Exodus event itself and in Jonah 4 God is still trying to deliver the saved people out of the land of slavery. Yahweh attempts to save the Dove! He's already saved the Pagans!

Before the narrative gets to Yahweh's attempt to save the drowning Dove (as he saved him from himself and the sea in 1.17 [2.1, Hebrew]) the writer lets the hammer drop! The Message captures the volcanic reaction in the Dove ...

"Jonah was furious. He lost his temper. He yelled at God, "God! I knew it - when I was back home, I knew this was going to happen! That's why I ran off to Tarshish! I knew you were sheer grace and mercy, not easily angered, rich in love, and ready at the drop of a hat to turn your plans of punishment into a program of forgiveness!"

My own translation through verse 3 reads ...

“Oh, Yahweh! Was not this exactly what I thought while I was still in my own country? This is WHY I at first wanted to flee to Tarshish. For I knew that you are a gracious and merciful God, patient and abounding in love, who regrets the evil. So then, Yahweh, take my life from me! I am better off dead than alive!”

It nearly takes our breath away! But our Minstrel isn't asking us to judge Jonah ... he is saying we are Jonah! Jonah, like Israel at the moment of salvation itself (i.e. the Exodus), rebels. Moses confessed "you have been rebellious against the LORD as long as he has known you" (Deut 9.24, NRSV). Are we still?

The narrator has shown us that Jonah is thoroughly "sound" in his biblical theology (1.9; 2.9). Jonah is immersed in the liturgical worship tradition of church and says a pious sounding prayer constructed out of the words he heard at church. Now the minstrel has the Dove confessing intimate knowledge of the very core of "Old Testament" faith - the "Apostle's Creed" of Exodus 34.6-7!! How many times have we confessed the infinite grace of God in prayer, in song, and sermon and then decide we are in control of the "grace nozzle"?? All to often I suspect. The author sings that Yahweh is not constrained by our understanding of his doctrine ... thus the Theologian is Wroth!

Jonah, like the Pharisees in Jesus' day, like many that Gather in buildings with A.D. 33 emblazoned on the corner stone, still does not grasp the depth of his own rebellion against the Lord nor his need for grace because of it. Three times the author has told us the Dove was fleeing from the "presence of YHWH" (1.3 {2x}; 1.10) and yet while Jonah was in the fish not a word of repentance and now in a place that corresponds to the fish Jonah still has not a word of repentance. It is hard to repent when we are convinced of our own rightness.

Rather than repent Jonah uses the creed to accuse God. In quoting the creed Jonah accuses God of four things:

1) of being gracious & merciful
2) of slowness of anger
3) of Hesed (steadfast love)
4) of repenting of punishment

The great text of Exodus 34.6-7 is hard to overemphasize in importance in Israelite faith. It is given in the context of the gross adultery of the Golden Calf to Moses. This self-revelation of Yahweh becomes the basis of hope in Israel and is referred to in whole or part around 25x in the rest of the Hebrew canon. See for example: Ex 34.6-7; Num 14.18; Neh 9.17-31; Psa 86.15; 103.8; 145.8; Joel 2.13 and Nah 1.3. The book of Hosea can be viewed as an extended meditation of hesed, the heart of the Israelite creed (see Ps 136 too).

That Yahweh is gracious. That God is merciful. That the Lord of Israel is loving and merciful is NOT a new teaching to Jonah! He says he knew (yada)! As we have many times sung Amazing Grace so Jonah had praised God for his hesed in his pious psalm in chapter 2. But here it is the historic, concrete, manifestation of God's grace to "objectionables" that is the object of Jonah's wrath! He has grace and hesed quantified, objectified and above all controlled.

Church, do we hear the scandal of these verses? What had always been the basis of praise, thanksgiving and appeal for forgiveness is now turned by Jonah into complaint and accusation against the Lord himself. He hates the fact that the Lord abounds in such unbridled love. That God's grace might extend to even Nineveh. He would, if he could, prevent this loving kindness of the Lord from flowing so freely. He would prevent God from being who he is! What God claims to be! All in the interest of protecting the integrity and reputation of God of course. Shades of the Grand Inquisitor interrogating Jesus ...

In the song the Minstrel sings, the Dove has subverted not only the very mission God created Israel for but has also attacked the message itself. Here in the song Jonah is the Anti-Abraham who argues with God not in order to save a city full of "wickedness, rebellion & sin" (from the creed!) but to protest its deliverance. In this melody Jonah is the Anti-Nehemiah who confesses not only his sin but the sin of his fathers and praises God for salvation flowing from the creed ... our Jonah never confesses and embraces wrath instead of gratitude. Most shocking of all Jonah is the Anti-Moses quoting the self-proclamation of Yahweh himself to Moses not to intercede on behalf of a rebellious people but to complain and accuse!

Gasping in Silence ...

A world where Yahweh is King and hesed is the law of the land is ... well it is a world that Jonah cannot live in. Yahweh's grace is unjust so it would seem to Jonah (echoes in Matthew 20.1-16). Jonah has already tried to commit suicide in chapter 1 but the Lord of Hesed does not wish for the Dove to drown. The Lord of Hesed wishes to set the Dove free to embrace life.

So Jonah says "and now take my life." Death is preferable to the embarrassment of Yahweh's version of law and order. To hear a death wish is an unsettling thing. For a prophet, a "son of truth," it is doubly disturbing. That the Singer intends this to trouble us as it is read aloud has been recognized since before the time of Jesus himself. In the Dead Sea Scrolls "edition" of Jonah there is a pause here for the reader. In the Masoretic text there is a setumah preserving the more ancient tradition of pausing at this point of the story. We are meant to gasp and linger in silence over the implications of the Dove's actions!

Pause and reflect in silence as the story expounds Ex 34.6-7 even in the life of Jonah the Dove. God's compassion in saving the drowning Jonah and sparing Nineveh. God's patience and love ... patient with Jonah and loving Nineveh. And his readiness to forgive "at the drop of a hat" by pleading with Jonah and canceling Nineveh's sentence. Perhaps we should just end this blog here.

Oh the Depth of Jonah. Oh the Wrath of the Theologian. Oh the wonders of his Hesed.

+++++++++++++++

I want to thank my friend Jason Benson in Milwaukee, WI for calling my attention to this painting of Jonah ... I plan on calling more attention to it in our next ...

Read More

Jonah #6: God's Heart & His Struggle with Israel and Us (Fugitive Reports to Duty)

Jonah 3: The Fugitive Reports for Duty

"Deliverance belongs to the LORD!" (Jonah 2.9, NRSV)

The Text

"Then the word of Yahweh came to Jonah a second time, saying:

“Rise and go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim to it the message that I am now giving to you!”

Then Jonah rose up and went to Nineveh, according to Yahweh’s word.At that time Nineveh was a great city to God – a three days journey was required. And Jonah set about to enter the city, walking a day’s journey. Then he proclaimed:

“Forty more days, and Nineveh shall be destroyed/Overturned/Changed.”

But the people of Nineveh believed in god. They proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth, everyone from the most important to the least. For the word had reached the king of Nineveh. He stepped down from his throne, threw off his regal garments, donned sackcloth and sat down in the dust. Then he had these words proclaimed in Nineveh:

“This is an edict of the king and his nobles: Men and beast, cattle and sheep shall refrain from eating. They shall not graze, they shall not drink; rather they shall don sackcloth, men and beasts, and shall cry to god almighty. And they shall turn about, each and everyone, away from their evil ways and from the violence that is in their hands. Who knows whether the deity/god will once more regret (his decision), and turn from his burning anger, so that we will not perish.”

And God saw their deeds, how they turned away from their evil ways. Then the God regretted the evil he had said he would do to them. And he did not do it! (My Translation)

Ruminations on the Story

The book of Jonah is an exquisite work of literary art. The two halves of the book are like mirror images that balance each other out. Also being one of the last books of the Hebrew Bible to be written the author seems almost to be meditating upon Israel's identity and task in the world. As our minstrel looks back over the history of Israel's literature one question that comes to mind is how faithful has Israel been as a herald of Yahweh's grace and kingship. Israel was elected to be a "light" to the nations (Isa. 49.1-7; See Gen 12.1-3). Israel is to be be a "kingdom of priests" on behalf of the world. In some sense Israel herself is God's Messiah for the benefit of the all humanity. The author of Jonah could look at his own history as we still do in the church ... and see how we have failed in our calling. We have been narrow, sticklers of orthodoxy, but most often, far from the heartbeat of Yahweh. As Moses declared to Israel at the head of her history "You have been rebellious against the LORD as long as he has known you" (Deut 9.24, NRSV. See the entire chapter).

Jonah 3 opens just as chapter 1 does. Jonah is commissioned a second time to go to Nineveh. It is apparent that after being vomited out on the ground that Jonah did not immediately rush to Mesopotamia. Yahweh has to remind him that he still has not done what he was told to do. Perhaps Jonah thought God would forget about this, in his mind, unpleasant task.

We learn that Jonah does obey the Lord but it is clear, as the story goes, he is not at all pleased at all. In verse 3 we learn an important detail. The NIV renders the text as "Nineveh was a very important city". Nineveh is thus an enormous city. The text, 'ir- gedola le'lohim, though likely means "a great city to/for God." The JPS puts this rendering in its footnote, I am inclined to keep it in the text. The commentators suggest this is the correct rendering as well (Sasson in Anchor Bible and Limburg in OT Library) Nineveh, part of God's creation, is "great" to God but interestingly, or sadly, it is not to Jonah. How often are the values of God and the values of his People not the same!

So Jonah heads off to this city valued by God and proclaims a brief message of doom. We are told in v.1 that Yahweh will give Jonah a message. When Jonah actually cries out, however, there is no messenger formula (i.e. "thus says the Lord"). We are not sure - we are left hanging by the author! -  if Jonah preaches the word of Yahweh or the word of Jonah! We know that God is concerned over the wickedness of the city (1.2) but we are never told just what his message would be.

I mentioned in a previous contribution that a number of words in Jonah appear to carry more than one intended meaning ... polyvalence. We are intended to embrace the possibilities rather than choose between them. Here in Jonah's "speech" we have one of those words: "overturn" or "overthrow." The term is nehpaket. It occurs several times in the Sodom narratives (Gen 19.21, 25, 29) which are echoed several times in the Story of Jonah. Yet in spite of that the word is intentionally ambiguous. It does not mean, necessarily, being nuked or annihilated. It can carry the idea of change or and even repentance. The same word in fact occurs, significantly, in Hosea 11.8 in one of the most poignant pictures of Yahweh in the entire Bible. It is the image of Yahweh "wrestling" with himself over whether or not to punish Israel! (a point not to be lost on the Hebrew reader in the fourth century BC):

"My heart(Yahweh) is changed/overthrown within me; all my compassion is aroused. I will not carry out my fierce anger"

What meaning does the author intend? Both! Jonah thinks he is preaching doom but Yahweh subverts his word, ironically, and makes it true in a way that Jonah could never imagine or even desired!. Nineveh was in fact overthrown! The pagans did change. They were "overturned." The prophecy is true ... just in a radically different form than Jonah imagined! Does that say anything to us today??

Jonah preached in his anger and did not (as far as what the author tells us) even mention the name of the deity in whose name he cried. The Ninevehites are polytheists. No wonder the king says "WHO KNOWS?? Perhaps the deity {nameless god} will have compassion" ... this "who knows" echoes the words of other pagans in the story ... the sailors in 1.6 (and as we saw before the words of King David - the author knows this and the readers know this but the King does not). The contrast between the pagans and Jonah could not be set in stronger relief. They don't even know the name of the deity and they turn in faith and embrace sackcloth and ashes.

Here is another interesting tidbit. The LXX reads in Jonah 3.3 "after/in THREE days Nineveh will be overthrown." The Old Latin version carries this reading as well. As far as I know there are no Hebrew mss with this reading but all the LXX do. So before the time of Christ there was a tradition of three days ... perhaps the LXX is trying to balance out the three with the days in the fish ... Either way the Gospel Evangelists often used the LXX rather than the Hebrew to tell their story of Jesus. We will come back to this in another post. But for now ...

After the Lord sovereignly sees that Jonah's words are ironically fulfilled, then he who is renowned for his compassion, lavish in his grace, and his reckless abandon in forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin ... does just that!! He "turns" from the "evil" he would bring upon them.

In Jonah we face again the heart of God. We also see, sadly, how often - and badly - God's People are out of tune with the One they call Father. We are reminded once again of the words of Moses:

"It is not because of my righteousness ... not because of your integrity ... but because the LORD swore an oath to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Understand then that it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land ... for you are a stiff-necked people" (Deuteronomy 9.4-6)

One wonders how far we have come in the centuries. We still are incredibly self-righteous. We are often filled with every emotional response to the pagan world but love! We like Jonah have dumped invective on the world perhaps more to see the "justice" of God rain down. But do we realize that the world, like Nineveh, is great to God??

Do we, as God's People, know our messianic identity. That we are placed as a light, a beacon, that shines in the night ... pointing not to ourselves but to the Deity who would rather have Nineveh love him than cower in fear before him. That is the God of the Hebrew Bible Jonah sang about but did not imitate.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Social Concerns in Churches of Christ: Trends Since the King Years, 1950-2000

A Word about this essay. Social Concerns was originally written during the Summer of 2000 while I lived in Grenada, MS. In making it available on the web I have edited it only slightly so it does not carry the research up to 2010. But I have continued to grow and learn. The essay is historical in orientation though not without theological perspective. I do not claim to be exhaustive on this matter (in fact I plan on posting a few more papers of equal length here on Stoned-Campbell Disciple blog). Interestingly enough, as side note, I was dismissed from the church I worked with not long after I finished it. That was the first great trial of the Valentine family. But I have great memories of the "three Amigos" Jonathan Moore (of Christian Life Church); Ernest Hargrove (AME Church); and myself.

As will become evident we stand in need of the healing rain of God's grace upon our church family. I pray for that rain and where I am allowed to will be a conduit of that mercy ... brackets [ ] with numbers in them indicate a corresponding footnote ...

SOCIAL CONCERNS IN CHURCHES OF CHRIST: TRENDS SINCE THE KING YEARS, 1950-2000

Introduction

Claiming to be a people of the Book, Churches of Christ have recognized that scripture reveals widespread concern with social justice. Passages like Deuteronomy 15.11-17; Amos 2.6ff; 5.10-24; Matthew 25 and James 5.1-6 among dozens of others have not been unknown to interpreters in our fellowship. What has not been recognized by many, however, is that these passages bear directly on the mission of God in this world and thus the mission of his people, the church. Does the church have a moral/biblical obligation to address prophetically the evils of the world such as discrimination, work conditions not far removed from slavery, and abject poverty? This paper seeks to explore how Churches of Christ in the mid-20th century to the early 1990s answered these kinds of questions. We will do that by looking at one slice of moral witness: race relations.

Churches of Christ flourished in the post Civil War upper South where the uniting social fabric was the civil "religion" known as the Lost Cause. The Lost Cause had white supremacy as its foundational principle [1]. "Negrophobia" dominated much of the post-Reconstruction southern psyche. The fear of African-Americans is clearly seen in the segregation of the races. "Ole Miss" historian Charles Reagan Wilson, writes that ministers of the South were the guardians of this worldview. In fact "racial heresy was more dangerous to a preacher's reputation than was theological speculation" [2].

In light of the Lost Cause, it is not surprising that many in Churches of Christ resisted an advocacy role for disenfranchised Black Americans. In fact we often find "our" ministers leading the opposite direction. Abilene Christian College president Jesse P. Sewell seemed to grant the Ku Klux Klan legitimacy by accepting contributions from the Klan during chapel [3]. Renowned Texas evangelist, J. D. Tant, lamented trends toward equality in Kansas. He reported in the Gospel Advocate:

Negro equality runs high here. Negroes ride in the same coach, go to the same school, eat at the same table with white people, and sometimes sleep in the beds of their white neighbors; all of which I am glad to say is not tolerated in 'heathen' Texas. [4]

African-American evangelist, Samuel R. Cassius, gives us a window into the prevailing attitudes among restoration churches when he accused them of being inbred with race hatred (for more on Cassius see my blog HERE). He writes with white hot passion about the moral injustice toward his race and the apparent lack of interest among preachers of the old time gospel message. The preachers themselves are:

[F]ull of race prejudice and hatred, inbred by three hundred years of schooling of a purely one-sided nature ... I may arouse passions that will cause my people to be hung, shot and burned under every tree in the South, or I may start a wave of sympathy that will roll over the land which will make such common things as these impossible to occur again [5].

Cassius was correct. The Disciples of Christ had historically been vague on the issue of slavery in theory, and in practice owned more slaves per capita than any other denomination in America [6]. James Shannon, one of the best educated men in the Stone-Campbell Movement, led a fiery defense of the morality of slavery [7]. Alexander Campbell himself, and Walter Scott, were unable to make slavery a moral issue rather than a political evil [8]. In the post Civil War era, Disciples provided many for the "rank and file of the Klan, and their preachers gave it leadership and respectability" [9]. (As an aside we can take pride in men like Pardee Butler for their prophetic ministry in opposing slavery. See my blog Pardee Butler: An Amos on the Family Tree).

Given the social context of Churches of Christ, it is not surprising that we often reflected white Southern values rather than the radically counter cultural values of the Kingdom of God. Rare was the preacher who dared to be guilty, in Wilson's terms, the heresy of promoting racial justice and equality.  So opposed to this heresy was the legendary Texas editor Foy Wallace the he made Jim Crow an essential part of Christianity. Writing about the black evangelist, R. N. Hogan, who stayed in the home of Ira Rice Jr. he said:

Aside from being an infringement of the Jim Crow law, it is a violation of Christianity itself, and of all common decency. Such conduct forfeits the respect of right thinking people, and would be calculated to stir up demonstrations in most any community if it should be generally known [10].

Editor Wallace goes on to attack Hogan as being "too much inclined to mix with the white people and to favor, in attitude, social equality!" Wallace was not finished yet. He turned his editorial guns upon the humble Marshall Keeble and the white women who attended his meetings. He laments:

The manner in which the brethren in some quarters are going in for the negro meetings lead one to wonder whether they are trying to make white folks out of the negroes ... Reliable reports have come to me of white women, members of the church, becoming so animated over a certain colored preacher as to go up to him after a sermon and shake hands with him holding his hand in both of theirs. That kind of thing will turn the head of most white preachers, and sometimes affect their conduct, and anybody ought to know that it makes fools out of the negroes" [11].

The Wallace-Hogan-Keeble episode provides a unique window into the mind of the Churches of Christ near mid-20th century. Not a single voice, that I have found, was to be heard of protest of Wallace's blatant racism. Not a single letter to the editor pointing out the glaring contradiction with "New Testament Christianity." It seems fairly safe to assume that Wallace represented the prevailing attitudes among most of his contemporaries in the South among Churches of Christ.

THE MARTIN LUTHER KING YEARS

On December 1, 1955, a tired Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white individual on a Montgomery bus and was arrested. Four days later the historic Montgomery Bus Boycott began on December 5; thus emerged the long and treacherous voyage to Civil Rights (Justice) in America. Martin Luther King, Jr was thrust upon America and the pages of history at the young age of 26!

From the beginning, Churches of Christ were involved in the battle against the degrading moral evil of segregation, even if that was limited to Fred D. Gray (see my blog Fred D. Gray: The Hero Lawyer). Gray defended Parks and organized the Montgomery Improvement Association which then appointed King as their spokesperson [12]. Gray, like King, was deeply motivated by Christian convictions that many of his brethren did not understand or share. Gray testifies how even Marshall Keeble, his mentor, did not understand. "It was difficult for him to understand how one of his former preacher boys would now be standing in courtrooms fighting racial discrimination" [13]. Somehow being concerned with the issues of justice took one away from "kingdom work" and into the dreaded "social gospel." This of course betrays a grave lack of appreciation of the actual kingdom work of Jesus himself.

Other than the work of Fred Gray, however, not much was being done among Churches of Christ expressing social concern in the area of racial justice until the historic speech of Carl Spain in 1960. Spain's speech at ACC, according to William Banowsky was, if judged by the intensity of the reaction to it, "the most spectacular speech ever delivered in Abilene" [14].
Spain sounds almost like Amos:

I feel certain Jesus would say: "Ye hypocrites!" You say you are the only true Christians, and make up the only true church, and have the only Christian schools. Yet, you drive one of your own preachers to denominational schools where he can get credit for his work and refuse to let him take Bible for credit in your own schools because of the color of his skin is dark! ... Are we moral cowards on this issue? There are people with money who will back us in our last ditch stand for white supremacy in a world of pigmented people. God forbid that we shall be the last stronghold among religious schools where the politico-economic philosophy of naturalism determines moral conduct. We fear the mythical character name Jim Crow more than we reverence Jesus Christ. In the name of "discretion" we make un-Christian and un-American rules like some states do in the name of "States Rights.'" [15].

There is no doubt that Spain's speech was electrifying, but contrary to Banowsky's assertion of it "solidifying brotherhood convictions" [16], the moral crisis was far from settled in Churches of Christ.

Silence was the typical response of leaders within the churches. Jimmy Allen, eleven years after Spain's speech, chastised preachers in 1971 for refusing to address the issue of justice. He said:

If our people are not right on this issue, it is because our preachers have not dealt with the matter. Preaching brethren, I am not trying to judge anyone but I wonder how many of us are cowards? Just plain down right cowards! Are we so in love with our positions or so afraid we might offend narrow-minded church leaders that we simply seal our lips ... When are we going to begin to instruct our people along these lines? Is the church of the Lord to be last religious institution in America to speak out for racial justice? [17]

A survey of leading periodicals of the time show Allen to be correct. During the violent years of the late 1950s through the early 1960s virtually nothing is published regarding the massive moral crises facing America and the church. In the Firm Foundation it was apparently the policy of Reuel Lemmons not to publish articles on the subject of racial justice and integration. He writes "we have received scores of articles on the subject of integration, both pro and con. Up until now we have not published any of them" [18]. Lemmons' editorial is insightful because it reveals several key themes. Lemmons denies that addressing "social structures" is the work of the church; he pointed to what he believed were segregation practices in the first century; and finally he flat denied that racism and segregation was a problem was in Churches of Christ. He states "we do not believe that segregation has ever been a problem with the Lord's church" [19].

In the same March 31, 1964 issue of Firm Foundation James Fowler published his views. Fowler argued that New Testament Christians had no interest in "social" reform of slavery or other evils. Indeed Fowler comes close to defending the status quo when he writes:

They did not turn from their primary purpose of preaching Christ to become involved in revolutionary demands and social reforms ... While they were brethren in the church they were still "Master" and "slave" ...

Fowler the suggests the church is not to be involved with the Civil Rights Movement:

[N]either can I find it within the spirit of Christianity to join the church to organized movements whose ends are not always clear, and whose methods and motives are not always above reproach, and whose values in the cause of justice is questioned ..." [20]

Unlike Lemmons and many other white church leaders who denied there was a problem, the Black Churches of Christ brought in the minority report. R. N. Hogan, editor of the Christian Echo, set out the contradiction in bold relief:

It must be agreed that we have the same kind of people in the Church of Christ today. There are the prejudice segregationists in congregations all over the brotherhood whose hearts are filled with hate because of the color of another man's skin" [21].

Andrew Hairston, an African-American minister, attacked head-on the common theme among white church leaders that racial justice was simply a "social" matter and not a matter of the Gospel.

The race issue is no more a social issue and to be divorced from the life and preaching of the true church today than it was when Christ died for the demolition of that wall separating man from man ...

Hairston argues the lack of interest in moral justice is not because it is unbiblical, but because it is a cross the white brethren are not willing to pick up.

There is little doubt that when the complete truth is revealed, the reason for the Church of Christ not speaking out against racial segregation ... will not be because the issue is SOCIAL and is therefore no responsibility of the gospel. It will be because to take as firm a stand on this issue as we have on baptism will cost too much in terms of social and economic reprisal" [22].

Hairston's view could not be more diametrically opposite that of Lemmons and Fowler.

March 7, 1965 was "Bloody Sunday" as Dr. King led a group of peaceful marchers toward the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Fred Gray once again was a key figure in the legal battles in the aftermath of that day representing King, John Lewis and many others [23]. For our purposes the episode highlighted once again the radically divergent views of social concern in Churches of Christ. When Rex Turner, President Alabama Christian College, learned that apparently a some ministers supported King's march and peaceful protest, he condemned them. Martin Luther King was simply seeking to "displace the gospel of Christ with a social gospel ... that has little or no concern with the fundamentals of Christianity." King was simply a "rank modernist" as were any who supported him [24].

Several years went by and there was another "burst" of articles appeared. The death of Marshall Keeble gave Lemmons the opportunity to analyze the current state of the crises. Lemmons contrasted the methods of Keeble and especially Martin Luther King Jr. Eulogizing Keeble, Lemmons said:

He never lead a riot; he never burned a block of buildings; he never marched on Washington. But he marched toward heaven from the day he obeyed the gospel, young in life and following him a great throng of peaceable people ..."

Just as the Firm Foundation editor had previously claimed there was no prejudice among Churches of Christ in 1964, so now he restated his convictions. "If he ever knew there were segregation lines he never indicated it. Indeed, because of his life and work there has been an infinitesimally small amount of racial prejudice in the Churches of Christ" [25].

Lemmons did not go unchallenged in his glowing appraisal of Keeble's experience and racism. Norman Anderson, a black preacher, wrote Lemmons rather pointedly. "I have searched myself deeply, trying to decide if the editorial based upon unbelievable racism on your part, gross ignorance of ... the conditions very much in evidence in the Church, or maybe you were so emotionally upset by the death of Marshall Keeble that you lost sight of reality" [26].

The Gospel Advocate issued a special Marshall Keeble memorial edition on July 18, 1968. Just as in Lemmons' eulogy, Karl Pettus contrasted Keeble's approach with the Civil Rights Movement. "He never led a march or demonstration, peaceful or otherwise. He never connected with a riot ... he didn't march for school integration, but he worked and spend himself" in the cause of Christ [27]. The Advocate's approach to the moral crisis seems to have been to ignore it. Not until September of 1968 did the Advocate acknowledge in a half-hearted way the upheaval around the Churches of Christ [28]. B. B. Baxter's article is vague and not until the end is the raging crises even mentioned and then only in a highly individualistic manner.

Several months later Hugo McCord added his dissenting voice against "artificial integration." McCord responded to black Churches of Christ that were perceived as too vocal about the obligations of the church. He argued that the apostles did not preach "that love requires artificial integration, nor do they preach that a congregation is not a New Testament church if it is not integrated" [29]. He writes that though Jesus had immeasurable compassion on the poor that was not his mission! Indeed these black brothers are, according to McCord, slipping dangerously close to the dreaded "social gospel." They

would make the unthinking say that any Christian or any congregation not going all out for the social gospel is hypocritical. Whereas the inspired apostles refused to leave the word of God to serve tables (Acts 6:2), apparently this speaker would make human relief the first order of business [30].

Coming from the opposite point of view, Walter Burch published an article in the spirit of Carl Spain's speech in the Firm Foundation on June 11, 1968. In a country that had been rocked by the assassination of Medgar Evars, the bombing of Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, the slayings of Mickey Schwerner, James Chaney and Andy Goodman in Neoshoba, MS and the brutal beatings of children in Grenada, MS., the Bloody Sunday in Selma, and finally the murder of King himself - Burch wondered aloud where the voice of God's people might be.

Tragically, the most flaming moral issue perhaps in the history of Christianity is evaded, ignored, or shunned with maddening indifference by the Church of Christ -- and generally speaking, without any visible pangs of conscience or remorse or agony expressed by the leadership within the white church. Apparently -- and this is an incredible thought -- no clear cut moral issue or scriptural principle is at stake at this time!

Burch states that the church will get very vocal over a high school dance or the theory of evolution, but "public opposition to racial injustice? No! The camel has been swallowed" [31].

A vanguard responded to Burch. Lemmons himself lead the way in an editorial entitled "The Racial Problem." Lemmons again denies any corporate responsibility, he denies that prejudice is a problem and finally he labels any attempt to work toward justice as the "social gospel."

Much is being said about what part the church should play in racial problems which would indicate that the speakers and writers have swallowed the "social gospel" idea. We repeat that we what we have said before: the church is about to forget its evangelical thrust" [32].

In the same issue B. B. Harding wrote "Articles like the above title by Walter Burch in June 11 disturb me, but not in the right way. One should be provoked to good works, not to wrath or disgust." Moving from his critique of Burch, Harding turned to King who had been killed just a few weeks prior,

To compare King to Jesus or say he didn't make violence as it was already here is foolish. Why did violence always follow his efforts? Jesus Christ didn't die defying the courts or "giving people all the hell he could"; and riots and violence didn't follow him everywhere he went [34].

Ron Goodman also responded to Burch. Far from being a "non-violent leader," King was really a "rabble rouser." He questions Burch "in what city do we find Paul marching the streets with disgruntled Jews, slaves or anyone else? Where are the "passionate sermons" on the subject." Burch is doing nothing more than selling out to "the social gospel" which has always been opposed by sound brethren [35].

The Christian Chronicle, unlike both the Foundation and Advocate, consistently pointed Churches of Christ to the crises around them. The Advocate ignored the death of Martin Luther King and ignored the race relations workshops held in various cities like Atlanta [36]. Denton Crews wrote that many preachers were "scared stiff on the subject." The response of our leaders, Crews opined was "pussyfooting about human relations" and to "beg the problem to go away" [37].

The murder of Martin Luther King Jr provides another interesting barometer of attitudes in Churches of Christ of this period. Frequently reactions, as we have already seen, to King were quite harsh. James D. Bales, of Harding College, wrote a large book exposing King. The work is an apology for right wing politics and contends that King was a pawn of the Communists ... even if he was possibly unaware of it.

Whether King is aware of what he is doing or not, the final outcome would not be changed. His contribution to anarchy within the United States,his cooperation with Communists within the United States, and his efforts to render us defenseless ... all add up to defeat for freedom and victory for communism if he and others like him prevail" [38]

Several articles and letters appeared in the Christian Chronicle following King's murder. African-American Calvin Bowers lamented his loss. He stressed King's Christ-likeness, his love and commitment to non-violence. Bowers echoing Jesus' words in Matthew 25, in contrast to Bales, claimed "he made clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and those in prison major goals in his life" [39]. Two letters however from white women were less than mournful. Mrs. Virgil Todd labeled King a communist [40] while the other accused him of being a violent political preacher [41]. Perhaps most revealing of the letters came from Truman R. Clark. Clark compared Keeble and King and found the latter wanting.

Marshall Keeble was a great man, but one of the main reasons why he was so beloved by our Southern brethren was that he knew how to keep his place. He would never have been so un-scriptural as to teach that brotherhood in Christ should pervade everyday life, in such things as schools, jobs, public restrooms, or -- perish the thought -- calling a black man something other than "boy." [42]

Scott does not give any reason why "brotherhood in Christ" should not change our relationship with people on a daily basis. Keeble was great simply because he "knew his place" in a deeply entrenched cultural church and King apparently did not. For Scott the eschatological reality of a new humanity has no bearing at all on the real day to day world.

The reaction of black leaders among Churches of Christ than those of many of their white brothers and sisters. Eugene Green writing in the Christian Echo had (like Bowers) a very different point of view:

In recent weeks Dr. Martin Luther King was killed, why? Well someone has said it was a sick mind, I say it was a sick society, because all who opposed Dr. King in his non-violent movement was just guilty as the one who fired the shot that killed him.

But let us not forget one thing, killing Dr. King did not kill the cause, if he was wrong in what he was teaching, then there would have been no need to kill him, the cause would have died itself, but if he was right ... we know he was. It might be asked where do I stand, well, I stand with God. Now about riots in the city, it is wrong, but if you treat people like an animal they will act like one. I do not hate my White Brethren, I love them very much, because I know that is the only way for me to see my fathers face in peace [43].

Green's view is radically different than that of Lemmons and Clark. He sees corporate responsibility for the death of King and civil unrest. Green believed that opposition to "the cause" is tantamount to opposition to God himself. The practical division between white and black Churches of Christ is further evidenced by the reaction of some well known preachers to promotion of justice on the part of black churches. John Waddey scolded African American leaders saying they were leaving gospel ground. "Those churches whose preachers have quite preaching the Bible and turned to social and political issues will not long stand." Truly biblical churches will avoid the world of "politics and social reform" [44].

One last voice needs to be noted before our study moves past the King Years. John Allen Chalk, speaker for the Herald of Truth radio program, had attended the race relations workshop in Atlanta and was encouraged to speak out on the subject. As a result Chalk preached his famous (or infamous) series "Three American Revolutions" which lead the way for several other sermons dealing with America's crisis of justice. Chalk forthrightly attacked racism:

Racism in America has defrauded the minority person of his personal dignity; has destroyed his sense of personal worth; has crushed his expectations ... has encouraged destructive futility and rebellion; and has continually confronted him with the "lie" of inferiority. [45]

Chalk adds "Jehovah God is not a racist. The Christianity practiced in the first century, as explained in the New Testament, rejected racism" [46]. The Herald of Truth sermons on race evoked the largest response of any previous lessons on that program [47].

In the King years Churches of Christ pretty much fell in line with the prevailing cultural values of the South. Voices are heard crying in the wilderness from time to time about one the greatest crises of justice in American history. Few, however, could critique the church from the perspective of the kingdom of God. Others simply denied there was a problem to be dealt with and any attempt to do so earned the label "liberal" or "social gospeler" or the charge of attacking the Lord's church. Glen Wallace's comments on the race relations workshop at the Simpson St. Church of Christ in Atlanta during June 1968, perhaps sums up the majority view. Writing in First Century Christian, Wallace charged the workshop with the desire to "RESTRUCTURE the church. They want our pulpits to ring with the social gospel theme. They want the "urban ministry" to become the cry of our day. They are tired of the story of the "old rugged cross" [48]. It simply was not within Wallace's purview that the the "old rugged cross" just might have vital connections with the pervasive theme of justice throughout scripture.

TOWARD THE NEW MILLENNIUM

Following the trauma of the 1960s there were only sporadic attempts to deal with racial issues in brotherhood journals. One article is significant for its negative evaluation of Black Power and affirmative action is Rubel Shelly's in 1980. Shelly addresses the surging racial bigotry following the Iranian hostage crisis. For Shelly, affirmative action is simply equated with his understanding of Black Power which was designed to either hurt or punish white people. "And while there ought to be something which helps achieve the stated goals of socalled affirmative action programs, many of these have degenerated into black tools for punishing and denying whites' [49].

Some writers began to there had been an over reaction to an ill defined and nebulous social gospel. Larry James for example thought this misconception had greatly hurt the church.

Our over reaction to a "social Gospel" of sort (real or imagined, it matters not) has paralyzed the body in many places and has prevented our making the legitimate and necessary response to the real plight of people in need. [50]

In the 1980s and 1990s the new journals IMAGE and Wineskins began to address racial justice from a more holistic doctrine of creation and a deeper grasp of the mission of the church. Contemporary justice issues were dealt with rather than swept under the rug as in the 1960s. When African-American houses of worship were being burned across the South in the early 1990s IMAGE published a piece by Larry James directly confronting the matter [51].

What sort of person would burn a church? The question itself causes my stomach to knot up. Yet since 1995 almost fifty churches have been torched across the South ... Most of these burned church buildings are small, poor, rural African American congregations."

James does not merely point to the problem, he suggests concrete steps that Christians should take to overcome hatred. These steps include honestly evaluating our attitude toward other ethnic groups; taking the time to openly talk and listen on the subject of race with a person of different color; learning to relate to others on their terms; take steps to change our behavior; and finally taking a stand for the gospel truth and teaching our children to love and respect all God's image bearers [52].

In the same issue of IMAGE, Rick Atchley addressed the fallout between African Americans and whites over the O. J. Simpson trial. Atchley believed that the root of the problem was not merely education but reconciliation.

Education alone will never solve the problem. Education has its place -- ignorance does breed prejudice -- but education cannot demand that people get to know one another. Reconciliation requires relationships. And relationships are not built spontaneously, but deliberately. Are we being intentional about racial reconciliation. [53]

Wineskins has addressed the problem of social justice and racism on several occasions. Rubel Shelly argued that Christians must take the lead in the monumental moral issues facing the church today. This, however, Shelly is quick to point out is not selling out to the dreaded social gospel. Rather,

It is an appeal for us to face up to the social implications of the true gospel. We have neither the right nor credibility for offering people a better prospect in the new heaven and earth if we are not actively concerned about justice for them in today's anguish ... The things that are concerns of God will not be neglected by his people. It is a "mark of the church" to teach and practice justice and for its members and to be advocates for the powerless" [54]

John Allen Chalk reflected upon the 1960s stating that though "we got the theology right, and some of us preached it but didn't practice what we preached. And our voices faded with the coming Worldly Church" [55]. Chalk recognized something very few Church of Christ leaders have believed and that is "racism is bigger, stronger, deadlier than any single individual." Therefore racism had to be attacked on both an individual level and an institutional level [56].

One of the most radical, and interesting pieces, written during the time covered by this study was Larry James' "Remembering a Martyr: Malcolm X and America's Struggle for Racial Justice" in August 1992. James believes that Malcolm X provides a unique venue for whites to contextualize the "rage, anger and pent up frustration of millions of black Americans who live in the great cities of our nation." By reading Malcolm, white folks can "glimpse the daily roadblocks black people must break through in their attempts to move beyond the despair and hopelessness of poverty and social alienation." Finally, James urges Christians to know Malcolm because his story demonstrates how Christian apathy about justice destroys the impact of the Christ [57].

Fred Gray, who was ignored by the brotherhood papers in the fifties and sixties, has in recent years been rewarded for his faithfulness to the gospel. His story was summarized twice in 1998. Michael Casey stated that not only did Gray try to defeat racism through the court, he did so through his preaching ministry. The two congregations in Tuskegee, Al merged on the first Sunday of November 1974 to become the Tuskegee Church of Christ [58].

Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech was reprinted in Wineskins along with a themed issue on the Civil Rights Movement [59]. Gary Selby reflected on his visit to the Lorraine Hotel, now the National Civil Rights Museum, in Memphis where King was murdered. Selby was moved to the core of his being. His reflection is worth quoting at length:

Mostly, I felt shame. Shame for what these people felt. Shame for the humiliation and abuse they endured. Shame at being a member of a system -- no, a beneficiary of a system -- which brought such misery upon so many people. I thought about the ways I have participated, knowingly and unknowingly, in this oppression. I thought of pronouncements I have made about matters which I didn't understand. Jokes I have told or laughed at. Conclusion I have reached about others because of their appearance. Being there forced me to admit how quickly I still judge a man "by the color of his skin rather than the character of his heart." I remember my own reluctance to get out of the car when I realized what section of town the Lorraine was in -- a section mostly poor and black. I who have so wanted to be seen as above all that. The museum forced me to see that issue for me -- maybe for all of us -- is not, "Am I prejudiced?" The question is simply, "In what ways?" [60]

CONCLUSION(S)

We began this study by noting the social context of the Lost Cause in which Churches of Christ thrived. The primary tenant of the South was white supremacy as Wilson has shown. In investigating the area of "social concern" with regard to racial justice among Churches of Christ, one quickly learns there simply is not much of it. Churches of Christ were a deeply enmeshed Southern Cultural Church on matters pertaining to race.

Several themes have surfaced throughout this overview. First is the view of Reuel Lemmons there simply is no problem at all. Second is that any engagement in racial justice is a manifestation of the "heresy" Wilson points to ... the dreaded social gospel. Third when solutions were attempted they were highly individualistic and only rarely placed within a larger structural paradigm. Fourth, justice was believed to be neither evangelism or benevolence and thus not part of the mission of the church. Fifth we see pervading the literature a continual failure to grasp how a platonic wedge is driven between the physical and material greatly limiting the power of eschatological ethics to impact the identity of the people of God. Sixth it is deeply apparent that "race" actually factors in whether one believes there is a race problem or not, the divergent perspectives on King make this glaring. Finally there is a marked political conservativism.

Some themes, like the dichotomy between physical and spiritual, seems to be waning. Other themes like the denial that there ever was or is a problem continues. For example the Gospel Advocate recently did a themed issue on "Christian Activism" [61]. There were articles on moral decline in America; the need for Christians in government and Paul's teaching on government. But in these articles there is not a single sentence regarding social justice of any kind.

There have been persistent voices crying out for justice throughout the history of Churches of Christ. They have often been drowned out by the culture around them, they have often been abused and accused of being social gospelers but they have been steadfast. For the bravery of these voices we can be thankful. We can only hope they can continue to help us see the message of Scripture more clearly than ever before.


ENDNOTES

[1] Charles Reagan Wilson, Baptized in Blood: The Religion of the Lost Cause, 1865-1920 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1980), p. 100. Interestingly enough Wilson cites a "Reverend T. B. Latimore" (p. 45) which turns out to be either a misprint or he miscites his source. Latimore is none other than legendary Church of Christ evangelist T. B. Larimore

[2] Ibid., p. 101.

[3] R. O. Kenley, "Ku-Klux-Klan Gifts," Gospel Advocate 64.47 (23 November 1922): 1128.

[4] J. D. Tant, "In Kansas," Gospel Advocate (5 February 1898): 71.

[5] S. R. Cassius, "The Race Problem," Christian Leader (1 October 1901): 12. Ida Wells-Barnett (born into slavery in Holly Springs on July 16, 1862) published her expose of religiously backed lynching in 1895, A Red Record: Tabulated Statistics and Alleged Causes of Lynching in the United States, a convenient excerpt is found in Deirdre Mullane, Crossing the Danger Water: Three Hundred Years of African-American Writing, pp. 395-401.

[6] According to Garrison and DeGroot the Disciples owned 101,000 slaves. The Baptists and Methodists held more in real numbers but not percentage, The Disciples of Christ, p. 468.

[7] See the succinct, though theologically slim, review of Shannon's 1855 speech at the Proslavery Convention in Lexington, Missouri in Barry C. Poyner Bound to Slavery: James Shannon and the Restoration Movement (Star Bible, 1999), pp. 112-118. Fortunately there were those who took strong anti-slavery stances, Pardee Butler; Ovid Butler and others. See Elder Jonas Hartzel's Bible Vindicated: A Series of Essays on American Slavery (Cincinnati: John Boggs, 1858) and the series of discussions in Is Slavery Sinful? Being a Partial Discussions of the Proposition, Slavery is Sinful by Jeremiah Smith (Indianapolis: H. H. Dodd & Co., 1863).

[8] For the dilemma Campbell found himself in see Jesse O. Hale, "Ecclesiastical Politics on a Moral Powder Keg: Alexander Campbell and Slavery in the Millennial Harbinger, 1830-1860," Restoration Quarterly 39.2 (1997): 65-81. Campbell's views on slavery are complex yet he provides a good example of how a person's racial background and social location can indeed filter one's biblical interpretation. See the very insightful article by D. Newell Williams, "Disciples Biblical Interpretation and the Fugitive Slave Law: Ovid Butler vs. Alexander Campbell," Encounter 59.1&2 (1998): 3-22.

[9] Wilson, Baptized in Blood, p. 117. Wilson also cites the role of Baptists and Methodists.

[10] Foy E. Wallace, "Negro Meetings for White People," Bible Banner (March 1941): 7.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Fred D. Gray, Bus Ride to Justice: Changing the System by the System, The Life and Works of Fred Gray (Black Belt Press, 1995), pp. 52, 55-60.

[13] Ibid., p. 257.

[14] William S. Banowsky, The Mirror of a Movement: Churches of Christ as seen through the Abilene Christian College Lectureship (Christian Publishing, 1965), p. 385.

[15] Carl Spain, "Modern Challenges to Christian Morals," in Christian Faith in the Modern World, Abilene Christian College Lectureship (1960), pp. 217-218.

[16] Banowsky, Mirror of a Movement, p. 387.

[17] Jimmy Allen, "Christ, The Prince of Peace," in The American Crisis and Other Sermons (Self-Published, 1971), pp. 101-102. For more on "Jim Crow" see C. Vann Woodward's classic The Strange Career of Jim Crow, Second Revised edition (Oxford University Press, 1966).

[18] Reuel Lemmons, "The Church and Integration," Firm Foundation (31 March 1964): 194.

[19] Ibid.

[20] James F. Fowler, "From the Midst of the Crises," Firm Foundation (31 March 1964): 199. The dates of these articles are significant in that Medgar Evers had been murdered in Mississippi in June of 1963.

[21] R. N. Hogan, "Tradition Versus God's Commandments," Christian Echo (July 1963): 1.

[22] Andrew J. Hairston, "Is the Race Issue Social?" Christian Echo (June 1964): 5.

[23] Fred Gray, Bus Ride to Justice, pp. 221f.

[24] Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith: The Story of Churches of Christ in America (Eerdmans, 1996), p. 297.

[25] Reuel Lemmons, "Marshall Keeble," Firm Foundation (14 May 1968): 306.

[26] Quoted in Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, p. 296. Hughes also quotes the letter of Howard White to Lemmons. According to White Keeble was always discriminated against. Never being invited to join luncheons or dinner, his students being ropped off like cattle but Keeble because of his great spirit suffered these indignities in silence.

[27] Karl W. Pettus, "The Memorial to Marshall Keeble," Gospel Advocate (18 July 1968): 449.

[28] See Batsell Barrett Baxter's "The Problem of Prejudice, No. 1," Gospel Advocate (5 September 1968): 561, 566; Part 2 is in Gospel Advocate (3 October 1968): 629.

[29] Hugo McCord, "A Sorry Viewpoint," Gospel Advocate (20 March 1969): 190.

[30] Ibid., 191.

[31] Walter Burch, "Neglecting Weightier Matters," Firm Foundation (11 June 1968): 372.

[32] Reuel Lemmons, "The Racial Problem," Firm Foundation (9 July 1968):: 434.

[34] B. B. Harding, "Neglecting the Weightier Matters," Firm Foundation (9 July 1968): 436.

[35] Ron Goodman, "Afterthoughts on 'Neglecting the Weightier Matters," Firm Foundation (9 July 1968): 437.

[36] The Christian Chronicle seems to have covered these events regularly. The June 14, 1968 Chronicle covers the Dayton workshop and the July 12 has a report on the Atlanta workshop.

[37] Denton Crews, Jr. "Brookline, Massachusetts to the Editor," Christian Chronicle (18 October 1963): 2.

[38] James D. Bales, The Martin Luther King Story (Christian Crusade Publications, 1967), p. 199. In my judgment rare is the book that so grossly misunderstands King and his work. Bales has no conception or appreciation that King was working for freedom. Nor did Bales see that the very system he was seeking to defend against the "Communists" was one of the most oppressive in the world.

[39] Calvin Bowers, "Reflections on the Death of Martin Luther King," Christian Chronicle (19 April 1968): 2.

[40] Mrs. Virgil Todd, Dell City, Oklahoma, to the Editor, Christian Chronicle (10 May 1968): 3

[41] Mrs. Sam R. Hershey, Midland, Texas, to the Editor, Christian Chronicle (10 May 1968): 3.

[42] Truman R. Clark, Villanova, Pennsylvania, to the Editor, Christian Chronicle (14 June 1968): 2.

[43] Eugene Green, "The Trouble with Skin," Christian Echo (July 1968): 5.

[44] John Waddey, "A Plea to My Black Brethren," Christian Echo (February 1970): 2.

[45] John Allen Chalk, Three American Revolutions (Carlton Press, 1970), p. 79.

[46] Ibid., p. 85.

[47] Richard T. Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, p. 302.

[48] Glen Wallace, "The Atlanta Conference," First Century Christian (October 1968): 3.

[49] Rubel Shelly, "Must I love My Neighbor If He is a Different Color?" Firm Foundation (1 January 1980): 5. For Black Power see James Cone's Black Theology & Black Power (Orbis, Second Printing 1999) and Risks of Faith: The Emergence of a Black Theology of Liberation, 1968-1998 (Beacon Press, 1999). Cone will, as they say, rock your world and make most of us uncomfortable.

[50] Larry James, "The Church and Good News to the Poor," Firm Foundation (17 October 1978): 666.

[51] Larry James, "Christians Should Lead the Way in Overcoming Hate," IMAGE (Sept/Oct 1996):7

[52] Ibid., p. 8.

[53] Rick Atchley, "Reconciling Differences," IMAGE (Sept/Oct 1996): 23.

[54] Rubel Shelly, "Passion for Justice is a 'Mark of the Church,'" Wineskins (August 1992): 3.

[55] John Allen Chalk, "Racism and the Body of Christ," Wineskins (August 1992): 10.

[56] Ibid., 11.

[57] Larry James, "Remembering A Martyr: Malcolm X and America's Struggle for Racial Justice," Wineskins (August 1992): 24-26.

[58] Michael Casey, "Bus Ride to Justice: The Story of a Faithful Gospel Preacher and Martin Luther King's Lawyer, Fred Gray," Wineskins (July/August 1998): 16.

[59] Martin Luther King, Jr, "I Have a Dream," Wineskins (May/June 1998): 9-10.

[60] Gary Selby, "A Visit to the Lorraine," Wineskins (May/June 1998): 13.

[61] Gospel Advocate (October 1995).

Read More

Black History Links on Stoned-Campbell

Greetings from the land of Saguaros and Scorpions. I was asked about some links on "Black History" since February is Black History Month ... the first is for Fred Gray. Most of the ones I have listed will have a connection to the Stone Campbell Movement. May you be blessed ...

Fred D. Gray: Hero Lawyer?

S. R. Cassius: A CofC Booker T. Washington

Pardee Butler: An Amos on our Family Tree

Loving when it isn't Easy: Reflections on a Parable

Sharing the Dream

Forever Free

PG-13 Rant Post: Corporate Murder or ...

May you find something to bless your walk with God, something to help in being salt and light and in loving our neighbor as our selves.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Here & There: Readings for the Spirit

"Reading is an immense gift, but only if the words are ssimilated, taken into the soul-eaten, chewed, gnawed, received in unhurried delight" (Eugene Peterson, Eat this Book, p. 11)

Archaeological find and the Hebrew language: When Was the Bible Written?

Scot McKnight's Blog Review and discussion of Everett Ferguson's Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries

Alexander Campbell is often painted as an Enlightened Rationalist. And there can be little doubt that he had deep roots in the modern world that still flow through our veins. HOWEVER Campbell was not out of tune with the otherworldly/spiritual. John Mark Hicks interaction with Campbell's Address on Demonology will raise eyebrows even today.

You ever wonder about those "waters above" and the "firmament" language in Genesis? Paul Seely has published major studies in Westminster Theological Journal. He has paid close attention to the historical context and in my view his correct in his views expressed published in "The Firmament and Waters Above."

And here is an audio presentation by N. T. Wright on Art & Mission ...

Tolle lege!

Read More

UNchristian Views ... Should We Care about them?

While camping with my girls in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico with my girls (see my Facebook album for pix) I reread a small work by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons called Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Things about Christianity to help me prepare for a mens retreat with the them "Entering the Matrix." The retreat was well received as we discussed how traditional/institutional churches can face the postmodern shift. This heavily researched book was published in 2007 and is now in its sixth printing. It is a most fascinating piece. The work concentrates on the ages 16 to 29 year olds (postmoderns) and what they think and believe about Christianity. In short the "image" of the church within North America is not a favorable one with this age group. The research was sponsored by the Barna Group a respected evangelical think tank. What saddened me most of all as I read through the book and digested the information is that we are so often known for what we are against and not for what we are "for." The three most common responses in this age group as they "characterized" Christianity were:

Christians are "antihomosexual" (fully 91%)
Christians are "judgmental" (87%)
Christians are "hypocritical" (85%)

As Kinnaman and Lyons unpack the information several "perceptions" pervade the view of Christians within North America. These perceptions might as well be reality for so many of them. There are six dominating views of those in universities, colleges, in our high schools ... and even in our own churches. It gives me cause for pause that THESE are the things that pop into this generations mind when they hear the word "Christian." Here they are:

1) Hypocritical
2) All Christians talk about are "getting saved" ... whatever that might mean
3) Antihomosexual
4) Christians are "sheltered" ... that is they don't live in the real world
5) Too Political
6) Judgmental ... Christians can't work with and can't get along with anyone who thinks differently than them

A young lady is quoted that sort of sums up a generational view. She unloaded on the term "Christian." "Most people I meet assume that Christian means very conservative, entrenched in their thinking, antigay, antichoice, angry, violent, illogical, empire builders; they want to convert everyone, and they generally cannot live peacefully with anyone who doesn't believe what they believe" (p.26).

As the authors point out it doesn't matter if we agree with the perspectives of these people (and we don't). But it is difficult to get a fair "hearing" for Jesus and his kingdom when these are the images conjured up within the minds of those we wish to LOVE into the kingdom. UNCHRISTIAN does not simply relate some dismal statistics but rather within their research they attempted to answer the question of WHY these people overwhelmingly have negative views of Christianity. In the quote above I scratch my head and ask ... is this the MESSAGE of the Lord Jesus? Have we Christians mixed the message with things that are not? Was Jesus KNOWN as the person who was "antigay?" ... some where I think I read he was known as a "friend" to sinners. I guess that just might include "gays."

As a Christian, should we be concerned about what a non-believer thinks? Should we be worried about what the "pagan" might believe about something she could not understand from the outside? The answer is YES!

Is it not interesting that Moses appealed to what the Egyptians would think of God (his reputation) if he destroyed the Israelites ... even in the face of the Golden Calf debacle? "Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth?" (Exodus 32.12) ... God seemingly cared what the pagan Egyptians would think of his reputation. Should we not also be concerned about our "image problem?" I think we should. I think the perceptions of a younger generation is a huge barrier to message of the kingdom.

Information gathered in Unchristian should motivate us to embrace the full wealth of our faith. Perhaps we have been to selective in our preaching and teaching ... perhaps it is time to embrace the unbelievably profound depths of biblical faith and preach it with a renewed sense of humility and genuine love for those around us ... telling the truth in LOVE ... how biblical can that be? Perhaps we need to remind ourselves once again that Christianity was around for a long time before the USA and God is not Republican or Democrat ... nor white, nor even Protestant! At the very least Unchristian views should force us to ask the question of "why" do people think what they think about us. The look in the mirror may be good for us ...

Shalom,
Bobby V

P.S. In light of some of the developing comments I have decided to link this post I wrote over two years ago called Jesus: The Welcoming Friend of Sinners ... Even Homosexual Sinners ... Perhaps it will further stimulate good discussion.

Read More