Re-Baptism: Where Does the Slippery Slope End?

Where does it end? James A. Harding opined that no man since the time of Christ had understood the design of baptism when he submitted to it. Of course by design Harding meant more than Acts 2.38 ... as our recent post makes clear. All that was biblically required was submissive faith in Jesus as the Messiah the Son of God. J.W. McGarvey argued, convincingly, that God requires simply faith and repentance for biblical baptism. Because baptism "belongs to God and not man."

Some demand that a candidate must must know specifically "the remission of sins" though there is not a single text that makes such a demand. But once one starts "adding to" the list of requirements necessary for baptism where does the "slippery slope" end??

Barry Grider for example wrote in the "Forest Hill News" (vol 27.9) of the Forest Hill Church of Christ on February 27, 2001 an article called "Scriptural Baptism." If my memory serves correctly this is the home of Memphis School of Preaching. Grider makes some pretty hefty demands on the part of the candidate:

1) Must have the correct mode. That is it must be immersion under all circumstances.

2) It must be done for its one and only one scriptural purpose. "If someone is baptized for some reason other than the remission of sins, such a person has not been scripturally baptized." My emphasis.

3) Baptism must be preceded by repentance.This is applied to divorced and remarried "unbiblically" are to be refused baptism if they don't repent. "[A]n administrator of baptism should not baptize a person who refuses to repent" that is of their "adulterous relationship."

4) The candidate must not only be baptized for one and only reason (remission of
sins) this person must "understand the concept of the New Testament church." "A
few denominational churches baptize for the remission of sins, yet the individuals baptized are not added to the one true church."

I scratch my head folks! I see no such demands in the NT placed on the candidates. I hate to say it but it is sectarianism in the extreme but where does the slippery slope of adding unbiblical demands end?



There are many, not a single, biblical reasons to be baptized. And how many folks out there understood the "the concept of the New Testament church" at their baptism? I would say there is misunderstanding present in Barry's own article on this point ... he declares that the church is the kingdom and this is not so. Once we have decided to cut ourselves off of anyone else new conditions have to be added to keep us "distinct" ... so where does it end?

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Tucson, AZ

Read More

Struggling for Faith: Thoughts on Habakkuk

An Intro to the Intro

Every Tuesday morning I meet a group of guys for "Coffee with Bobby." Usually the Sun has not graced the valley with beams of light yet. We have been reading our way through Habakkuk for some time now. What a rich journey! Many of the faith struggles and questions of Habakkuk resonate deeply with me. So what I propose to do here is share some of my interaction with the Prophet Habakkuk. I have written things in my journal and some of that has found its way into this post ... May it bless ...

“How long, O LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen?
Or cry out to you, ‘Violence!’ but you do not save?
Why do you make me look at injustice?
Why do you tolerate wrong?
Destruction and violence are before me;
there is strife and conflict abounds.
Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails.
The wicked hem in the righteous,
so justice is perverted.”

Introduction

John Bright once remarked that Habakkuk lived in a time of gross and violent injustice. He lives in a time when society has not only grown accustomed to abuse of our fellow humans but has come to expect it and even sanction it. That is “just the way life is.” It was a the society obsessed with a “premonition of doom and gnawing insecurity . . .” (History of Israel, 3rd Edition, p. 320).

The world power structure of his day was radically changing. The Assyrian Empire, which had been the master of the east for centuries, was in its death throes. A new power, called Babylon, was rising as fast as a meteor shooting across the sky. Government officials were killing each other, kings were being assassinated left and right, judges and lawyers could care less about the right as long as they made a buck or two.

Habakkuk looked around and saw his world, his nation, God’s People bent on self- destruction. He saw a society where neighbors took advantage of each other any chance they could. He saw a country where the poor and outcast were severely discriminated against.

And Habakkuk is confused! He is confused because he does not understand why Yahweh, the God of Israel, tolerates this situation. He confessed the holiness and justice of God and yet was dismayed that God had not stepped in to rectify the horrendous scene before him. He is confused because he finds God’s People to be at odds with his faith. He is confused because he wonders if faith can even survive in this kind of world.

I love the prophet Habakkuk! I think he is my favorite of the prophets. He seems so relevant to my life in this postmodern, post-Christian, and post-divorce world. He speaks, seemingly, directly to my life and my world. My world that has also been filled with a “premonition of doom.” Think about our world for a moment, do we not live in a world amazingly similar to Habakkuk’s? I read through Drudge and various news outlets imagining that I was Habakkuk. Our world definitely seems to have a gnawing insecurity. Huge corporations and executives sap millions (billions!) of dollars from the little man, leaving hundreds of thousands wondering about their future. Innocent people spend 35 years in prison only to learn that the police and the court hid information that proved innocence. The world sleeps with one eye open for fear of terrorists and the possibility of war. In Sudan and Ethiopia thousands are starved to death by their own governments while the rest of the world just washes its hands as if we have no responsibility. Marriages fall to pieces ...

Yes...our world is like Habakkuk’s! He read the local paper and shook his head in dismay and said in a loud and painful cry, “How LONG! O, Lord, how Long!” It is as much an exclamation as a question. We read the paper and say, with Habakkuk, “Is God really in control?” “How can God let us go on treating each other as we do?” We must admit that we believe he is – but at times it looks as if he isn’t!!

A Complaint as Prayer

Habakkuk is among God’s faithful. He wanted to do what is right in Yahweh’s eyes, he wanted Israel to keep his covenant of love. But how is that to be done in a world that has forgotten God? How can Habakkuk have “faith” when he is simply struggling to have faith? How can you and I, not just maintain, but grow in our faith and devotion in times like these?

The prophet does something that most of us, on the face of it, despise. He complains! In our society complaining is associated with the sore loser or the ‘cry baby.’ That, however, is not the kind of complaining that Habakkuk is doing. Habakkuk’s complaint is called a “lament” and it is vital to genuine biblical faith. Habakkuk’s complaint (or lament) is a cry of weariness. The prophet is tired of the world as it is. He is exhausted from the fight of merely existing in a world in which the one standard is “look out for yourself!”

Because he is weary of Sin he complains to God. Because he is tired of injustice he laments. Because he is weary of evil he calls to God, “How Long, O Lord” (v. 2). This is the language of worship – it is the language of prayer! It is holy language ...

How does one exercise and struggle for faith in a world like ours? If Habakkuk is any indication the first step is wrestling with God in prayer. Habakkuk in a sense becomes Israel itself. Israel means the "one who wrestles with God." And Habakkuk is in a mighty wrestling match.

What can the Christian do about Iraq, banks, corruption in government and injustice against those of another race? Habakkuk says we must turn to the only source for making the world a place of shalom (peace) and that is Yahweh in anguished prayer! The prayer of the follower of Christ is intensely interested in God’s mishpat, God’s justice in this world. That is the dominating idea in these four gut wrenching verses of Habakkuk. The prophet prays for God to intervene and make justice count. He prays that right will prevail in the lives of those around him. He asks the honest question, “how can you stand to look at wrong doing?” (v.3, TEV). I cannot begin to count the number of times I have voiced that same question.

The struggle of faith in a troubled world is anchored and shown in prayer – honest wrestling prayer. No not a prayer every once in a while but constant prayer. The text lets us know that Habakkuk has been uttering this lament in prayer for a long time. Over lengthy periods of time faith is demonstrated through calling on his Name. Habakkuk challenges us – because he was challenged – hunger and thirst after righteousness and seek God’s kingdom first in this world. It made the prophet sad, even angry, that his world was dominated by a view that could tolerate the mistreatment of fellow humans. That sadness fed his prayer life. That sadness caused him to plead, cry and wrestle in prayer with Yahweh to send forth his righteousness.

Complacency and Struggling for Faith in Troubled World(s)

Christians must avoid the spiritual disease of complacency at all costs. You see complacency kills our search for intimacy with God. It kills the God-born hunger in our hearts for righteousness. Complacency convinces us that the world isn’t so bad – especially if we are not personally impacted by its injustice. Complacency whispers that I need not be concerned about corruption in officials or the courts.

Habakkuk calls such mentalities on the carpet. He demonstrates just how foreign such an outlook is to those who belong to the covenant community of Yahweh. He challenges us to hate evil and seek God about it in prayer. Prayer not only demonstrates our faith while living in a troubled world, but it also FEEDS and STRENGTHENS our faith. In prayer we learn, as did Habakkuk, “that no matter how loud the roar of the storm, no matter the strength of the wind or the force of the rain – God is with us.” (Jerry Jones, Beyond the Storm, p. 165).

In prayer we enjoy the refreshment. How so? In prayer we may not discover the answer to injustice or why God tarries. However, in prayer – in worship – we find the gracious Presence of the Father. The same Father who once lost a Son to a mob bent on lawlessness and injustice. We find companionship for the dark night and strength – yes even divine strength to live by faith in a troubled world.
That is why Habakkuk laments and wrestles with God in prayer.

I recently read a fascinating book by Eugene Genovese, The World the Slaves Made. It amazes me how the “world” the slaves made was fashioned out of their troubled world – it was the creation of faith. Imagine, if you will, that you were born in 1838 (or you think you were) and you just happen to be black. You are now 20 years old in 1858. You don’t know who your father is, nor your mother, because you were sold shortly after birth. You have seen children taken from their mothers and it grieves you. You have witnessed white men take slave girls and father children by them only to see them sold into slavery themselves. The other day you wandered off the plantation without supervision and received thirty-nine lashes for trying to escape. On a day called Sunday you see a bunch of white folks go to a building called a “church” and worship some “God.” You even think in your mind that you might have faith in this God too. I ask you, how would you, if you were one of those slaves, maintain faith in your troubled world?

I tell you, honestly, I don’t know if I could have – but they did! In fact faith thrived. How did they do it? They did what Habakkuk did – they prayed their laments. They sang their prayers and they triumphed over the world that had them in chains. They have left all Christians a priceless treasure of faith filled prayers songs we call “spirituals.” They sang prayers like, “There is a Balm in Gilead” and “Roll Jordon, Roll” and “Where You There When they Crucified My Lord.” They sang,

Go down, Moses
Way down in Egyptland
Tell old Pharaoh
To let my people go.

(Crossing the Danger Water: Three Hundred years of African-American Writing,
ed. Deirdre Mullane, p. 277)

and

Steal away to Jesus
Steal away, steal away home,
I ain’t got long to stay here.

and

We’ll soon be free,
We’ll soon be free,
We’ll soon be free,
When de Lord will call us home.

My brudder, how long,
My brudder, how long,
My brudder, how long,
‘Fore we done sufferin’ here?
(Crossing the Danger Water, p. 291)


Did you hear the same question that Habakkuk asked? “How Long, O Lord?” It is the cry of God’s People down through the ages. But in that troubled world faith not only was born but thrived. We sing their prayers of deliverance. We sing their prayers songs for God’s kingdom to burst forth. We sing their songs of unshakable faith. The slaves had faith by going and wrestling with God in prayer – they did not find the answers they longed for but they found something profoundly mysterious – the companionship of God. The slaves are just one example of faith thriving in this fallen and sinful world. But its one that I am grateful for.

As Christians we believe that God has in fact answered Habakkuk’s complaint. He has heard the slaves of long ago. God wants us to seek him, and him alone, not the “comfort” of the world. God assures Habakkuk that he is working to overcome the evil he laments (1.5-11). No, God will not tolerate evil and injustice. He does not just want to punish evil but eradicate it, he wants to cure it!

God points the prophet forward to a time he cannot see – to the time of the Cross of Jesus Christ. There in the face of the Ultimate Outrage against justice we see God’s one and only answer to the problems Habakkuk has shed tears over. God challenges us to see in that event his answer to the evil of this world. He condemns and punishes all the evil the Prophet complained about and the slaves sang about – he tells us to look at the figure of the Man on the Tree and see the wrath of God displayed against injustice. We see the resurrection and are assured that God does in fact make it right. Our prayers are being heard, they have not fallen on deaf ears. In spite of it all ... THIS I DO BELIEVE!

Wrapping Up

So we Christians, in the year 2009, will commune with God in his holy temple and keep silent prayer before him (2.20). We will continue to wrestle in prayer for God’s way to be our way. We will pray for God’s kingdom to have dominion over all hearts. We will pray for justice to be empowered in our world. We will maintain faith – through God's gift of prayer – in this mighty unfriendly and troubled world. We will call to our God and he will give us the strength and see us through. I close with, possibly, the most stirring words in all of Scripture:

“Though the fig tree does not bud
and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails
and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen
and no cattle in the stalls,
YET I WILL REJOICE IN THE LORD,
I will be joyful in God my Savior.”
(Habakkuk 3.17-18)

Oh, God may it be so ... as we Seek Shalom.

Read More

J. W. McGarvey: What is Valid Baptism?

The very mention of the name "J. W. McGarvey" inspires awe among many descendants of the Stoned-Campbell Movement. His name is synonymous with biblical scholarship among us. He courageously took on the liberals of his day in The Authorship of Deuteronomy. But he is most remembered for his Commentary on Acts. A work that some hold to this day to be the best study ever of Luke's second volume. Today he is cited in our intramural conflicts between progressives and conservatives, usually by the "conservatives." But who was McGarvey? What did he believe? He is rightly remembered for his scholarship. He is rightly honored as one who can help us understand deeper levels of the biblical text. He may not, however, if he were alive today fit snugly where some imagine he would. Let me use the issue of baptism to illustrate the point.

In McGarvey's day it was the rule, not the exception, that immersed believers from Baptist or Methodist churches were welcomed into Stoned-Campbell churches without undergoing a rebaptism. This would have covered Alexander Campbell himself. Evangelistic reports from the period frequently highlight how many were "baptized" and then how many have embraced the "plea" to be only Christians. This latter category were folks from other churches that practiced believers baptism.

Periodically some one would raise the question (as Dr. John Thomas did in the 1830s but that is another story for another time) of this practice among "us." J. W. McGarvey was faced with this question in the American Christian Review in 1862. He asked "What is Valid Immersion?" There are those, McGarvey, admits who are confused on the subject of baptism. Sometimes due to the failure of the preacher they are not fully taught on the matter and believe "error" about the "ordinance." Does the belief of the error undo the candidate's obedience? Biblically, McGarvey argued, there are two conditions for the candidate to fulfill:

1) the candidate was commanded to believe [the gospel] and

2) the candidate was commanded to repent.

These were the commands to which God required obedience for valid baptism. A false or incorrect notion about the ordinance does not undo baptism. Why? Because "it belongs to God and not man." The blessings, or gifts, of baptism are not commands to be obeyed but rather grace that flows from the hand of God. So ...

"when the conditions [belief & repentance] are complied with, he will be as good as his word, and it would be most unreasonable to suppose that he would withhold the blessing simply because I do not know that I am entitled to it. A man, therefore, cannot forfeit the blessing by mere ignorance of the promise, unless a knowledge of the promise is found to be a condition of its fulfillment, which certainly will not be assumed by any reader of the New Testament."

After declaring what constitutes valid baptism ... a candidate coming in faith in the gospel and a penitent heart ... McGarvey turns to the prevailing practice of the Stoned-Campbell churches of accepting into fellowship immersed Baptists, Methodists and others. In fact, McGarvey presents us with a concrete example ...

"[S]uppose a Baptist presents himself for membership with us, and we attempt to decide upon the validity of his immersion. We find that he was a believer [condition #1], and a penitent [condition #2], before he was immersed. He did not make the confession in express terms, but it was because he was not required to so, the preacher having become satisfied of his faith through other evidence. He believed that his sins were pardoned before he was immersed, and said so; but this was a mistake, not an omission of any duty, unless it be the duty of understanding Scripture. But this duty is not peculiarly connected with immersion, and we have seen that its omission cannot invalidate the immersion ... it is most unreasonable to suppose that his sins are still unforgiven."

Since valid baptism consists in fulfilling two conditions (faith & repentance) McGarvey believed restoration churches were completely true to the Bible in the practice of welcoming all immersed believers in Christ as members of God's family. That is as real Christians. Just to make his point emphatic and clear McGarvey stated ...

"If I were to attempt [to rebaptize the candidate], I would be making him repeat a duty which he had already fully performed ... We conclude, with all confidence that the brethren have been doing right to receive into fellowship all who have with faith and repentance have been immersed and have since led a reputable Christian life."

One wonders if McGarvey had published his thoughts in 2009 and not a hundred years ago if he would still be thought as the greatest biblical expositor in our heritage. But from what I can tell, McGarvey's understanding is in harmony with the Scriptures ...

Read More

To Toleion: The Perfect? First Corinthians 13.10

Many have asked me at one time or another to share my thoughts on 1 Corinthians 13.10. It is a critical text in many a debate over hermeneutics and the canon. But I have been hesitant to do so for a variety of reasons: unsure of it myself, to avoid controversy, and lack of time for extended discussion. I have profited greatly from the study of others on this passage and have done some of my own.

What follows are not dogmatic axioms but explorations into the deep wells of God’s unfathomable wisdom. I remain open to correction and study.

There are four basic interpretations of “to teleion” in 1 Cor. 13.10. Not all are equally weighty or persuasive but I offer them nonetheless.

1) Probably the most familiar view among Churches of Christ is that “the perfect,” as the King James Version reads, refers to the completed canon of New Testament scripture. This particular interpretation seems to have arisen historically as a reaction to Pentecostalism. B. B. Warfield is said to have taken this position but I have been unable to document this. But I have checked into the history of the interpretation of this verse and it is true that this view does not seem to exist prior to the 19th century. Usually James 1.25 and Romans 12.2 are appealed to in support of this interpretation. But as the lamented J. W. Roberts wrote these verses are not discussing the canon (see J. W. Roberts, “That Which is Perfect” Firm Foundation [July 25, 1972], 468). This particular interpretation has been shown to be both exegetically and historically wrong by such conservative scholars as Richard Oster, Carl Holladay, J.W. Roberts, Gordon Fee and Donald Carson. In fact I have not found any standard commentary which has adopted this interpretation. The context of the verse and history of interpretation pretty much eliminate this as the proper understanding of the text.

2) The second interpretation that is usually given of “to teleion” is that the phrase refers to “agape” (love). This particular view has more going for it that the one just reviewed. Indeed, this is the view that I once held myself and still find it to be very persuasive. More specifically this view holds that “to teleion” does not refer so much to “perfection” but to the “totality” or “maturity” of the Corinthian Christians in terms of agape love. Carroll Osburn has probably presented the best case that can be made for this interpretation . . . and as I stated before it is a strong case (cf. 1978 Abilene Christian College Lectures, pp. 138-171; Jim McGuiggan presents a summary of Osburn in his commentary on 1 Corinthians). Osburn has done an amazing amount of research into how the Church Fathers interpreted this text. In fact some of his research has moved me to embrace a position different from him.

3) The third interpretation is a nuanced view of #2, in that the church no longer needs gifts. The weakness of this position is that it is not built upon 1 Corinthians but upon Ephesians 4.7-16. This interpretation breaks, what I believe to be an iron clad rule of exegesis, a passage must first be understood in its own context and then seen in light of others. John McRay has written the presentation of this view: “To Teleion in 1 Corinthians 13:10” in Restoration Quarterly (1971): 168-183.

4) The fourth position is the position that I have come to believe as the best interpretation of the verse. This interpretation understands “to teleion” to refer to the Eschaton or the return of the resurrected Lord at the End of Time. In summary fashion let me share why I have come to this position:

A) As Osburn’s research shows, this is basically the position in the history of the church until around 1600. I do not know of a writer who understood “to teleion” to refer to the Bible. But the Fathers almost unanimously agree the “perfection” refers to the End of Time or heaven (eschaton). Origen for example writes in his controversy with Celsus that we cannot know the eternal things here but only in the highest heavens (pros akrois tois ouranouis) and then he says, “we shall ever be engaged in the contemplation of the invisible things of God, which are no longer understood by us through the things which he has made from the creation of the world . . . then face to face [a reference to 13.12] when that which is perfection comes then we that know in part will be done away” (Contra Celsum, VI, xx). Basil, Gregory, Eusebius and Chrysostom all understand the text to refer to the Eschaton. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther and John Calvin (see his Commentary on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, I, p.428) take the same position. I am not merely parading names here but showing that there is pretty much universal consensus on the meaning of this text stretching across both centuries but even the Catholic and Protestant divide.

B) However, my reasons for accepting this position are not wholly historical but rather exegetical. It is the exegetical reasons the carried such weight with the names above and I find them convincing. The Apostle frames a great deal of what he writes in the context of eschatology Throughout First Corinthians his advice is repeatedly framed within this forward looking perspective (cf. 1.8f; 2.6; 3.13, 15, 17, 22; 4.4f; 4.8f; 4.19; 5.5; 6.2f; 6.9f; 6.14; 7.17-24, 26, 29, 31; 9.24f; 10.11; 11.26, 29, 32; 15.12ff; 16.22).

In the immediate context of 13.12 we have a clear eschatological frame of reference. “Perfection” thus entails a “state of affairs where my knowledge is in some ways comparable with God’s present knowledge of me” (D.A. Carson, Showing the Spirit, pp. 70-71). Gordon Fee has some insight that is not so much the end itself but what will happen at the end . . . that is the goal of the End: “At the coming of Christ the final purpose of God’s saving work in Christ will have been reached” (Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, p. 208). Richard Oster in his commentary takes this same position, along with an extended discussion of why this does not force one into accepting Pentecostalism. Another good resource for reading is Klein’s article “Perfection, Mature” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, p. 700.

This interpretation has context on its side, it has the history of interpretation on its side and the consensus of modern scholars. I believe it is the correct interpretation of what Paul meant in this text. Again I think only interpretation 2 is a serious challenger for this view but I feel that context weighs against it.

We long for the "perfect" to come ... Come Lord Jesus.

Read More

Tulsa Workshop Anyone...

I was at the Tulsa Workshop a couple years ago when John Mark Hicks and I spoke together. I didn't make it last year due to other commitments and a small hurricane that entered my life. However next month, March 26-28, I plan on being there ... not on the docket but I certainly plan on just "getting away" for a couple of days and lost in the crowd.

Who out there is planning on being at the Workshop? Perhaps we could have a "bloggers" fellowship ... any one up for it?

Read More

"In Words Easy to Understand": Restoration Quest for a Readable Bible

Those words, uttered by James Shannon in 1852, capture the near unanimous voice of the 19th century Stoned-Campbell Movement for a Bible in clear, accurate and understandable English. I recently blogged about Alexander Campbell's Living Oracles and his attitudes regarding the King James Version and due to some interest I plan on a few more posts on the quest for a fresh translation of the Bible.

When the English Revised Version hit the shelves of Barnes & Nobles in 1881 it was greeted with open arms among Churches of Christ. Celebrated though it was, it was seen as a result of Alexander Campbell's work earlier in the century. The Gospel Advocate noted, "More than half a century ago, Mr. Campbell was busily sowing Revision seed all over this continent and some of that seed fell on English soil, whose ripened fruit is seen today in the volume I hold in my hand" (L.H. Stine, "The New Revision," GA 23 [July 1883], 473).

Though Campbell was not, in any way, connected with the Revised Version, it is true that he labored endlessly for a corrected vernacular translation. In the 1820s he observed, "[A]ll who attained to the honor of first reformers attempted to give a translation of the scriptures in the vulgar tongue of the people they labored to reform" ("History of the English Bible No.2," Christian Baptist 2 [March 1825], 159). Tolbert Fanning could write in the mid-1850s, "For the half of a century the friends of what is acknowledged "The reformation of the nineteenth century," have zealously pleaded for a revised version of the scriptures, but most denominations have maintained a steady and unmitigated opposition to every argument and effort on the subject" ("Revision of the Holy Scriptures," Gospel Advocate 1 [November 1855], 156-157).

Some resisted, as Fanning noted, "tampering" with the Bible of their youth. James Challen, long time Stoned-Campbell preacher, put it this way ... "Not a few seem to believe, or at least act as if King James' version was inspired, and consequently infallible, that to touch it with the rod of criticism, is like laying sacriligious or unpriestly hands upon the ark of God" ("The Necessity of a New Version and the Means of Procuring It" p.23)

Some people's attachment to the King's version was extreme. Alexander Campbell reproduced from the New York Recorder the plea of William Stone not to defame the grand old Bible at the inaugural meeting of the American Bible Union ...

"You may appoint a congress of theologians; but think you that the associations of two hundred and forty years can thus be erased? Think you that Christians who have learned to lisp the Saviour's name from this book, can thrust it aside and take up a new version? Dear old English Bible! we will not forsake thee. Thou may'st be slandered with "blasphemy," but we will not part with thee; and when we lay our heads on our last bed of sickness, this slandered, blessed book, shall be our pillow, and in its own glorious words we will breathe out our last prayer, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit" ("A Most Portentous Discussion and Decision," Millennial Harbinger [August 1850], 437)

Campbell's long held belief in the necessity of revision of the King James version was honored when he was invited to deliver the key-note address at the first annual meeting of the American Bible Union in 1850. This speech, which is 39 pages long, gives a history of the history of translation and revision. In the end such translation is both missionary in nature and growth in discipleship ... without it the advance of the gospel will not happen and fresh translation reflects advances in understanding what the Bible says and means. Thus the task of producing a Bible "in words easy to understand."

Seeking Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

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