Love: The Road Less Traveled, Jn 13.1-17

A word about this post.  The following is the text of a sermon I was invited to preach at the Bell Flower Missionary Baptist Church in Grenada, MS on February 14, 1999.  The occasion was a "Community Praise & Worship Service" in the middle of the month of love and Black History Month. Belle Flower M.B. Church is a historic church in Grenada, MS.  It is the oldest historically black church in the city, it was host to Martin Luther King Jr in the 1960s and the church was fire bombed after Dr. King spoke there.  In the auditorium the evidence of the fire is still visible in places. It was a great honor to asked to address this nearly all black crowd (except for the white folks I persuaded to come with me).  I chose as my text John 13 and combined the themes of love and black history.  I have not edited the text. I realize that I was somewhat juvenile in my homiletic so bear that in mind.  It was my prayer that it blessed then and it is my prayer that it does so now.  I prayed and I preached from the heart to a city in serious racial turmoil ...a little over a year later I was fired from the congregation for which I preached.  Enjoy.

Love: The Road Less Traveled

(After reading all of John 13.1-7 I made the following brief observations to set up the text and context)
* Jesus' death is near (v.1)
* Jesus "shows the full extent of his LOVE" (v. 1b)
* In the last hours of his life God in human flesh is on his hands and knees washing feet like a common slave, including the one who means to murder him
* His disciples are puzzled, indeed Peter rejects this humble demonstration of radical love (v.8)

The Full Extent of Love

What does John mean when he narrates that Jesus "showed the full extent of his love?" I thought the Cross was the full extent of the Messiah's love? Perhaps the key lies in the fact that this event is a drama of the Cross itself.  Jesus served all humanity - good and the bad - on that Cross and here he served humbly even those who had already betrayed him.

The one who would do Jesus in, Judas the Betrayer, is sitting in that circle of disciples to have his feet washed.  Amazingly Jesus washes Judas' feet too! Jesus knows the plot that has hatched in Judas' mind I am convinced. And here we have Jesus being the servant to the one who in mere hours will hand him over to be murdered.  This is the extent of his love! Perhaps John is testifying to the fact that Jesus did what no other person in that circle would or could have done ... that is to actively love the one who is seeking your demise.

But we often respond like Peter.  We claim we want love. Yet when love does show up we reject it as too costly. We want love but we find love to heavy to a cross to bear.  So we settle for less!

My friends if the extent of Jesus' love in John 13 shows us anything it reveals that love is painful.  I imagine in my mind that as Jesus washed Judas' feet that a tear welled up in his eyes.  Is that far fetched to imagine that? But wash his feet he did and that was painful love.

Love is painful. Perhaps that is why it is the road less traveled.

Jesus was often lonely because of love.
Jesus was hung upon the Cross because of love.
Jesus discovered that true love is a dangerous thing in this world.

The Road Traveled Less Often

Isn't that why we on a daily basis choose to relate to each other on every basis but love? We relate to each other on the basis of competition, of power, of self interest. How we can make this or that come out to our own advantage. How we can preserve our power base or influence in the community.

Love takes too much time.  Love takes way too much commitment.  Love requires that I take you into account in every action and every decision I make.  Love demands I put you before myself. Love commands that I serve my enemies and bless those who would "do me in" ... Just as Jesus showed Judas the full extent of his love.  Perhaps it is the requirements, the demands, and the commands of love that make love the road less traveled.

We know that Martin Luther King knew the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ on this vital point. For King, love for his enemies became his cross to bear! His sermon "Loving Your Enemies" [1] sends shivers down my spine because he does for me what the picture of the stooped Jesus over the feet of Judas did for John ... it was only in hindsight that John could, or did, know that THAT was the full extent of love - that even Judas was not excluded from the love of the Messiah. It was only AFTER the suffering of the Cross that John could look back and see Jesus kneeling before Judas caressing his feet and know the depth of the love displayed in that act of humble kindness.

King addressed the National Conference on Religion and Race in Chicago on January 17,1963. His words bring John 13 to life, for love is no mere abstraction:

"To be a Christian one must take up his [i.e. Christ's] cross with all its difficulties and agonizing and tension packed content and carry it until that very cross leaves its marks upon us and redeems us to that more excellent way which comes only through suffering.  Only through love."

Is carrying a cross easy? I do not think so, and I have never endured any cross such as that of Jesus nor King.  The cross was not easy for Jesus ... he begged the Father to be set free from it!! It was not for Dr. King.  And in Grenada it will not be easy for you and it will not be easy for me.  That is why Love is the Road Less Traveled in this town haunted by loveless past.

Perhaps Dr King caught a glimpse of Jesus bending over the feet of Judas on that day when the Cross became an unbearable burden.  It was a day the nails of the Cross pierced with unbelievable pain because they were hammered with pure hate. You know the day - it was day that lives in infamy.  December 15, 1963! The day a haven, a place of worship, became the target of terrorists. A bomb planted by those who hate at the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham.  That bomb killed four little girls: Addie Mae Collins, Denise McNair, Carole Robertson, and Cynthia Wesley.  They were just little girls.  I have two little girls! Rachael and Talya and I know the anger in me should someone harm them. The Cross was beyond a torture stake on that day!

Dr. King spoke at those little girls funeral. Innocent as the pure driven snow! The victims of a senseless hate crime.  I cannot even begin to wrap my mind around that.  But when King addressed that crowd we learn the depth of his Christianity.  We learn the extent of love.  We learn of the Road that he often traveled alone in the footsteps of the One who washed Judas' feet.  Just to read King's words we can see the impression of the Cross bearing down upon him. He said at that funeral

"in spite of the darkness of this hour we must not despair. We must not become bitter; nor must we harbor the desire to retaliate with violence. We must not lose faith in our white brothers. Somehow we must believe that the most misguided among them can learn to respect every human."

Then King says these unbelievable words "God has not given me permission to hate."

I am unworthy to even utter these words because I am sooooo far from the vision of love embodied here.  I would have lost faith I think!

Martin Luther King Jr my friends followed Jesus and took the road less traveled. Heeding the words of the Hebrews Preacher "consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you do not grow weary and lose heart" (12.3) King saw the full extent of Jesus' love for his own enemy and believed that to be a disciple he must love as Jesus loved.

Do we not naturally balk at that kind of love ... it is costly. We are Peter and say we cannot endure such humility, we have too much self respect to serve THEM! Whoever "them" may be ...

The road of love requires courage but if we want peace in our community, if we want renewal in our community, if we want a new day in our community then we must follow first Jesus and then Dr King down that less traveled road.  Until we do we will not have God's shalom in Grenada.

The question that we all must confront is: Am I willing to bear the Cross of Love and serve the Judases of Hate? Am I willing to put even those who would "do me in" before my own interests? Are our congregations in Grenada that dare to call Jesus "Lord" willing to follow the one who knelt before Judas? Are we willing to come together for the sake of the kingdom? Are we willing to walk on the road less traveled?  Milan Kundera was painfully correct when he wrote "nothing is heavier than compassion."  Look at Jesus before Judas as John gazes back upon that scene through the gift of memory - and be amazed!  Look at King saying "we must not lose faith in our white brothers" ... and be amazed! Compassion. Love. The Cross is hard to carry.

The On Ramp to the Road

But suppose every person here in this crowd tonight says I am willing to follow Christ down that road less traveled, What then? I confess to you right now my friends that I do not know all the answers and perhaps I do not know ANY answers.  I have never endured anything like the Lord before Judas.  I have never endured anything like an attack on my precious little girls. As I was unfit to vocalize King's astounding words I confess to being unworthy to say what we "must do."  But I believe that God in his Providential mercy has brought all of us here to this place tonight.  In the middle of this month that I am standing in the very pulpit that Martin Luther King Jr himself stood I cannot help but feel God is on the move and he demands that I do SOMETHING.  I do not always know what it is but I know something offered in his name can be blessed by the Holy Spirit. So with fear and trepidation I offer a few suggestions to help us travel the road together.

1) Love Begins With Understanding. To feel with, to share with another human being, I must know something about your burden and you mine.  True understanding means I must learn to listen longer and speak much less.

I submit to you this is why God was incarnate in human flesh. For the Messiah to understand the human condition he needed to become a true human being. Jesus lived, Jesus suffered, and Jesus died, and Jesus was raised from the dead as a human being.  He loved us enough not only to wash Judas' feet but to get inside the skin of the despised Jew and experience our life in this fallen world in order that he could represent us to the Father! The great German pastor/theologian Helmut Thielecke wrote "tell me how much you know of the suffering of your fellow man and I will tell you how much you love them."

So the task for us all here tonight is to begin the process of listening, learning and understanding. Do I care enough to learn about your life? Do you care enough to learn about mine?  Can we move beyond the stereotypes of what is black and what is white and listen to the unique stories we all have? We may find that our stories identify us both a mere humans.  To enter the Road Less Traveled we must begin to understand one another.

2) Understanding Must Deepen My Willingness to Bear Your Burden. Understanding is not the end of love rather it is the entry point. Understanding love bears fruit in my own life in shouldering the burdens of your life. It is a most interesting fact that the Greek language, in which the NT was written, that the word for "compassion" literally means to be moved with anger at a given circumstance!  For example two chapters ahead of Jesus washing Judas' feet we read about Lazarus. Most of our English translations tell us that Jesus was "moved" or something similar (cf. Jn 11.33, 38).  But Jesus was not simply 'moved' he was "angry."  He understood deeply what death had done to his friend and it made him ANGRY ... not at Lazarus but at death and the power of death, at the circumstance! Does our understanding - as limited as it is - move us the way Jesus' understanding did him? Are we "moved" to the point to be willing to actually do something about it?  If not then I have arrived at the love Jesus shows Judas and that King shows us throughout his life.

3) Love Means I Must Commit to LIVE My Baptism.  Bear with me on this point please.  (Read Col 3.1-12, note esp. v. 12).  The apostle says the Christian life reflects the crucifixion we receive in baptism.  King spoke movingly about bearing that Cross till its impression is left in our lives - Paul says that is what baptism does in our journey down that road less traveled.  As a fallen member of humanity I am nailed with Christ to the Tree in the waters of baptism.  The old human dies and we walk leaving all the stuff of death there in the grave.  In baptism we are clothed with the qualities of Christ - compassion, lowliness, meekness, forbearance and love (see 2.9-12 [died with Christ]; 3.1ff [raised with Christ]) The Christian life is one of fulfilling our vows made to the creating and redeeming God we made in baptism.  It is through baptism that we learn there is no Greek, Jew and for our purposes tonight - NO WHITE and NO BLACK - rather Christ is all and in all (3.11).  Traveling on the road of love demands that we live these baptismal claims. It was no easier in the first century church than it is in our own day for Jew and Greek than it is is in Grenada for black and white ... but if we want to claim love as our way then this is the path we take.

Conclusion

My friends we must choose the path less traveled every single day.  There are exists off the road every which way we look.  Love is a choice.  Jesus made a choice to serve Judas.  Martin Luther King made a choice to love those white brothers. Love is hard because we must freely and willingly take up that Cross when all around us the voices come from within the white community and the black community to caste it aside as too burdensome.

Will my fellow ministers in Grenada walk along this path? Will the mayor? Will our divided and hostile city council? Will teachers in our schools?

I think I know why love is the road less traveled but it is the one to which we are called as Christians. I do not claim that my walk on that road is perfect, in fact I do not even know if I am on it!  But I will confess to you my heart's desire is to walk in the steps that Jesus walked and to love those who would "do me in" even as he loved them.  Perhaps we - you and I - can enter the road together tonight understandingly bearing with one another and I do not think Grenada is prepared for the revolution that can happen when we all decide to make Love the most traveled of all roads. May God bless you and keep you and make his face shine upon you.

Notes:

1] My edition of this great sermon is in Martin Luther King Jr, Strength to Love (Pocket Book 1963. Mine is the 2nd printing from 1968), 41-50.  This is a priceless gem of a book.  King's sermon "My Pilgrimage to Nonviolence" (pp. 165-173) should be required reading for Christians.

Read More

American Empire: A Very Brief History of Our Imperialism

Opening Quote

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

Entering Where Angels Fear to Tread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emergence of the American Empire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluding Empire Thoughts

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

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

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

Read More

A Black Intellectual Writes to Thomas Jefferson

The Colors of Liberty

On July 4, 1776 explosive words from Thomas Jefferson captured the hearts of men and women, white and black, in the British Colonies in America.  Those words read, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." These words set the world ablaze not only with war but with a new way of looking at humanity.  The "Age of Liberty" though was not exactly as it appeared to be however.

Following the Revolutionary War, from 1783-1800, many of the Patriots lead a full blown retreat from the implications of the famous words above.  The seventeen years following the war have been termed by the provocative work by Larry Tise as "the American Counter-Revolution."  In fact Thomas Jefferson, who always retained the rhetoric of the pursuit of individual rights is deemed as "the most radical counterrevolutionary" of them all [1]!

Jefferson had published, in 1785, his Notes on Virginia that attained near canonical status among slave holding Americans. When Jefferson won the most contentious election in American history it was because of the "federal ratio" - that is the Three-Fifths Clause in the Constitution giving southern slave states a greater number votes in the Electoral College (Jefferson lost the popular vote).  Future president John Quincy Adams wrote of the election of Jefferson, "The election of Mr. Jefferson to the presidency was, upon sectional feelings, the triumph of the South over the North - of the slave representation over the purely free" [2]. The Notes changed the way Americans thought and talked about liberty, freedom, equality and the rights of humans. Now even with the Revolution fresh in mind there was no vision that could bind all humans together within the United States.  For Thomas Jefferson black folks were constitutionally inferior, morally bankrupt, and unfit for social equality with whites. They may be good for sexual exploitation however [3]. 

Thomas Jefferson's new doctrine reads rather clearly in his Notes, "I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of the body and mind." Liberty was colored even for the writer of the Declaration of Independence.

A "Black" Enlightenment

If Thomas Jefferson did not believe his own words they inspired folks on the other side of the colored liberty line. The period saw African Americans breaking out of the stifling limits and bigotry in significant ways.  Phillis Wheatley dazzled white readers with her poetry. Olaudah Equiano became a world traveler and a crusader for black liberty. One man who emerged from the shadows was Benjamin Banneker.

By 1791 Banneker had become a well known celebrity of sorts.  Banneker was a free black tobacco farmer in Maryland. He was in many ways he was the counter part of his white name sake Benjamin Franklin. He was born and raised in destitution. Both were self-taught. Both loved mathematical puzzles. Both were fascinated by nature, patterns of weather, and astronomy. Both enjoyed the challenge of creating almanacs. Both, it would seem, were products of the Age of Enlightenment. Banneker's first almanac was rejected because the publisher did not believe a black man was capable of performing the mathematics required for one. Yet when his almanac was published for 1792 that it was a "COMPLETE and ACCURATE EPHEMERIS for the year 1792" and had been

"calculated by a a Sable Descendant of Africa, who, by this Specimen of Ingenuity, evinces, to Demonstration, that mental Powers and Endowments are not the exclusive Excellence of white People, but that they Rays of Science may alike illumine the Minds of Men of every Clime, (however they may differ in the Colour of the Skin) particularly those whom Tyrant-Custom hath too long taught us to depreciated as a Race inferior in intellectual Capacity."

In other words black men were not mere brutish beasts.  Further in 1791 Banneker had been engaged by President George Washington as one of the surveyors and planners for the soon to be capital of the United States. Banneker, a true son of the Enlightenment, was a man who believed that liberty came for those of a different color too. Thomas Jefferson did pass on the Almanac to the Academy of Sciences in Paris as possible evidence that some blacks were capable of science.

A Black Intellectual Writes Thomas Jefferson

On August 19, 1791 a sixty year old Benjamin Banneker sat down to write a short note to Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson.  As Banneker explains at the end of the letter he initially intended to only send Mr. Jefferson a copy of almanac so he could peruse the contents.   But something moved Banneker to express himself to the supposed Apostle of Human Liberty on the matter of liberty for black people within the United States. It is not without irony in the shadow of Jefferson's Notes that Thomas' Paine's The Right's of Man was published in May of 1791 just a few months prior to Banneker's letter.  Paine's book was endorsed by Thomas Jefferson.  But what did the black intellectual say to the author of the Declaration of Independence and Notes on Virgina?  He opens

"Sir: - I am fully sensible of the greatness of that freedom, which I take with you on the present occasion {Banneker it will be recalled was a free black man}, a liberty which seemed to me scarcely allowable, when I reflected on that distinguished and dignified station in which you stand, and the almost general prejudice and prepossession which is so prevalent in the world against those of my complexion."

Banneker mentions how common the notion is that blacks are mere brutes ...

"I suppose it is a truth too well attested to you, to need a proof here, that we are a race of beings who have long laboured [sic] under the abuse and censure of the world, that we have long been considered rather as brutish than human, and scarcely capable of mental endowments."

But Banneker submits his almanac as proof of the mental endowments and human qualities of his race. He tells Jefferson that "we are all of the same family, and stand in the same relation to him [i.e the universal Father]."  Banneker likwise appeals to the "obligations of christianity" [sic]. It is because blacks and whites are part of the same family and "christian" obligation that Jefferson should pursue liberty for all men regardless of color.  He appeals directly to the Revolutionary heritage in his letter to Jefferson. Surely the men of 1776 were no hypocrites.

"Sir, I have long been convinced that if your love for yourselves and for those inesteemable laws, which preserve to you the rights of human nature, was found on sincerity, you could not but be solicitous that every individual thereof, neither could you rest satisfied, short of the most active diffusion of your exertions in order to their promotions from any state of degradation to which the unjustifiable cruelty and barbarism of men have reduced them. 

Sir, I freely and cheerfully acknowledge that I am of the African race, and in that colour which is natural to them of the deepest dye, and it is under a sense of the most profound gratitude to the Supreme Being of the universe that I now confess to you that I am not under that state of tyrannical thraldom and inhuman capacity to which to many of my brethren are doomed ..."

Banneker reminds Jefferson of the "powerful effort" of the "British Crown" to reduce the colonists to a "State of Servitude."  At that time Jefferson "clearly saw into the the injustice of a state of slavery."  So clearly did he see that Banneker ironically quotes back to Jefferson those nearly immortal words that filled so many oppressed with a sense of hope.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator [sic] with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Banneker confesses his dismay at how any person could say those words much less write them and justify the existence of slavery and the racism required for the peculiar institution to survive in the atmosphere of the post-Revolutionary War. Banneker forthrightly points out Jefferson's hypocrisy witnessed in his Notes and in his own possession of slaves. 

"Here, sir, was a time in which your tender feelings for yourselves had engaged you thus to declare, you were then impressed with proper ideas of the great valuation of liberty and the free possession of those blessings to which you were entitled by nature; but sir, how pitiable is it to reflect that although you were so fully convinced of the benevolence of the Father of mankind and of his equal and impartial distribution of those rights and privileges which he had conferred upon them, that you should at the same time counteract his mercies in detaining by fraud and violence so numerous a part of my brethren under groaning captivity and cruel oppression, that you should at that same time be found guilty of that most criminal act which you professedly detested in others with respect to yourselves."

The black intellectual pleads with Jefferson to become empathetic with black slaves.  Appealing to the the words of a lamenting Job "put your soul in their souls stead."  Thomas Jefferson did not and could not ever do that.

Adding Benjamin Banneker to the "Canon"

The letter of Benjamin Banneker to Thomas Jefferson on August 19, 1791 was laden with potential to renew the promise of the American Revolution. Banneker knew that Jefferson symbolically stood at the head of the revolution but also sadly was the man who derailed.  Jefferson went on to become President of the United States on the back of slaves who were not even recognized as a full human and denied even three-fifths representation and his Notes became the water hydrant to quench the fervor for rights for all Americans.

Banneker, an elderly self-educated genius saw through Jefferson and called Jefferson's bluff. This man can serve as a model of what can be every bit as his white counterpart Benjamin Franklin. He did not let his circumstances define him. He had limited "formal" schooling but was a life long disciple in the best sense of the word.  He disciplined himself daily and nightly in the path of knowledge rather than property or wealth. His physical travels were very limited but his mind traveled the entire Creation of God. He broke through the stereotype that black men were ignorant sexual brutes.  He even shows that "elderly" people are not over the hill with nothing to accomplish or contribute - after all he did not publish his first almanac until he was nearly 60 years of age. Facing systemic bigotry on a daily basis he overcame by the power of his God-given and cultivated intellect.  When I read the story of Banneker I am reminded of the startling quote Thomas Chatterton Williams attributes to his father regarding basketball, "If you're going to complete then do your best, son, always do your best, but remember that I really don't care if we ever have another black athlete or entertainer" [4]. The problem is not athletes or entertainers but the stereotype that pigeon holes African-American males in those roles ... they do not define "blackness."  Banneker destroys that image and can show both white folks who still retain a subtler form of Jefferson's blatant racism and at the same time inspire a generation of new intellectuals.  Both black and white.  He is worthy of emulation.

Perhaps Banneker should be in the Canon of American Saints as much - perhaps more - than Thomas Jefferson.  The more I think about it I think Tise was correct, Jefferson was the most radical counterrevolutionary.

Perhaps you do not know much about the great American hero Benjamen Banneker.  If not let me recommend the excellent study by Robert Silverstein and Charles Cerami, Benjamen Banneker: Surveyor, Astronomer, Publisher, Patriot (Wiley, 2002). You will be blessed.

Notes:

1] Larry E. Tise, The American Counter Revolution: A Retreat from Liberty, 1783-1800 (Stackpole Books, 1998), 439-451.

2] The only book length study on the role of the "Three-Fifths" clause in Jefferson's election is the marvelous work by Garry Wills, "Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003).  Quote from p. 1.

3] See Jan Ellen Lewis & Peter S. Onuf, eds, Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson: History, Memory and Civic Culture (University of Virginia Press, 1999).

4] Thomas Chatterton Williams, Losing My Cool: How A Father's Love and 15, 000 Books Beat Hip-Hop Culture (Penguin Press, 2010), 34-35.  Emphasis in original.

Read More

Embracing Differences for the Sake of Unity: Some Theological Reflections

The ancient philosopher, Aristotle, was quoted as saying "Birds of a feather flock together."  This seems to be his way of saying that people of similar ethnic, racial or class backgrounds tend to congregate together.  Even in the church of God, whose members in theory are "neither Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and is in all" (Col 3.11), tends to be the most segregated organism in the world. Rare is the community of faith that truly embodies the universal nature of God's heavenly outpost as the New Testament envisions it.

Catalysts for Diversity 

Charles Foster argued that the proverbial tendency observed by Aristotle is understandable among fallen humanity because "embracing differences" is not easy given our proclivity to "exclude, dominate and oppress" [1]. Writing in 1997 he believed, however, that a growing trend among congregations is to exemplify the diversity of the kingdom of God. While it is true that our congregations have more racial diversity - and Lord we need more! - a few "tokens" of God's multi-colored humanity in various congregations does not translate into having multicultural congregations. What can we do intentionally to have congregations that reflect now what the Prophet John says exists presently before the throne of God

"I looked and there was a great multitude that no one could count, form every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands ..." (Rev 7.9)

How many local congregations look like the heavenly reality? How do we move from suppressing that glorious diversity to embracing differences.  Miroslav Volf has argued that at least two intentional moves must be taken by people in for this to come close to a this worldly reality [2].  First, to embrace difference means that I/we must "create space in myself for the other." This is done intentionally.   Second, we must communicate that I/we do not want to be without the other in his or her uniqueness.  These two moves allow space for the other person in their difference from ourselves and to exist within community.

It seems to me that there are four basic "catalysts" driving an openness to cultural differences in our congregations.  First catalyst is simply the survival mentality. As a congregation spirals downward it lacks the finances to keep up a vision of the future. In this situation the a local monolithic congregation rents out space to an African-American or Chinese-American fellowship.  This possibly morphs into a joint Sunday school program or other programs that bring the two together.

A second catalyst is what some call a "gospel commitment." This is a certain perspective or understanding of "evangelism." These congregations have a desire to preach the gospel to every person regardless of race. These types of churches rarely become multicultural however, for the dominant culture seeks not only to baptize the convert but his or her culture as well [3].  These congregations fail to recognize the polyvalent nature of the Gospel message itself.

A third catalyst is the ancient Christian Spiritual habit of hospitality. These congregations not only have active witness to people with significant differences but believe in being hospitable - welcoming - to others. These Gatherings do not expect and indeed do not seek change in the other to the dominant culture. I am becoming more and more convinced of the importance of hospitality as a Spiritual discipline for witness in our postmodern and fragmented world [4]. As the ancient Egyptian monk counseled "We always treat guests as angels - just in case."

A fourth catalyst is a theological vision. That is the local congregation sees its gathering as the anticipation of and embodiment of the eschatological people of God seen by John the Prophet.  The Lion and the Lamb are not to lie down in the future only but in the present as well.  Black and White are not just going to sing praises as one in the future but in the present as well.  The diversity of God's family is not simply to be a dream in heaven but a reality at the Table of God every Lord's Day as a witness to the world that God has, in Christ, healed all racial and cultural division!  This is a vision that produces a powerful catalyst for "creating space in ourselves" for black culture, white culture, hispanic culture, etc while at the same time moving us to speak to these "others" that we simply cannot live without them.

Negotiating Differences 

Even if a Gathering has made the theological commitment to image in the present God's eschatological people this does not guarantee a multicultural congregation will result. Even the most progressive fellowship will face resistance to diversity.  This resistance is rooted in the fear of loosing identity, loosing power, loosing privilege, and loosing status. Resistance replaces patterns of mutual engagement.  Denominational groups often have "machinery" that tends to promote that status quo. Even a movement that claims to be non-denominational like Churches of Christ there are unofficial hierarchies that exist to protect the status quo in the interest of imagined "doctrinal cohesion." When dissenters sought to demonstrate the validity of Martin Luther King's vision of shalom the censure of the Church of Christ power structure was often swift and harsh. They were denied traditional forums for the exchange of ideas: pulpits, lectureships and journals (See my Social Concerns in Churches of Christ: Trends since the King Years, 1950-2000). A further source of resistance is something as simple as majority vote. Invariably the dominate culture will dominate the voting process thus making the congregation - or society - look artificially uniform.

How can we negotiate the subtle dynamics of power at work in our "church culture" for the sake of a theological vision of God's multicultural family? For example in the simple act of greeting a person whose culture will be followed in greeting? If a person of Russian descent is greeted will we follow they prevailing Anglo handshake or the Russian hug with a kiss on the cheek? What creates space in ourselves for the Russian? What communicates to him or her that we choose not to live without them?

Typically churches fall into four general patterns in negotiating differences.  The first is that sponsoring church pattern. In this model two separate gatherings use the same basic facilities. The culture of each congregation lives alongside each other rather than interact with each other.  The second pattern is that of the transitional church.   In these congregations a typical "European" majority has basically "given up" and is in the process of fleeing a perceived encroachment from another race/culture. Harvie Conn noted the historical reality that most so called integrated congregations are "actually in transition from being a white church to a black church" [5].

A third, more insidious, pattern is that of the assimilating church. In these congregations those in the minority move from the margin to the dominant paradigm. The person seems to be "accepted" but his or her uniqueness has been squashed. Foster suggests this assimilated person has been forced into a sense of "racelessness" [6].  The Borg of Star Trek: Next Generation perhaps best symbolizes this perspective.  The Borg travel the galaxy seeking to crush all cultural differences by assimilating them into the "Collective."

A fourth pattern is the celebration of the differences and embracing them for the sake of the kingdom of God. In this Gathering the believers not only feel but articulate to one another that the Creator and Redeemer of us all loves us all in our differences.  Perhaps leaders in this congregation can vocalize this sentiment: "We celebrate that Palo Verde is a mosaic of God's creation."  As long as we live and function in the fallen world this embrace is never easy but it is recognized as a gift of grace from God himself. This congregation understands that the "relational imperative is not conditional" but grounded in the gospel of reconciliation [7].

Linking Practices

Gatherings of Christ that seek to pursue a theological program representing "the mosaic of God's creation" will learn what are called "linking practices." A linking practice sends intentional explicit and implicit messages to both members and visitors that in this place all are welcome in the name of Jesus. One simple linking practice would be simply using both white and black "greeters" for the Sunday assembly.  Another simple linking practice - a ritual of acceptance - would be congregational recitations of the Lord's Prayer while holding hands or verbally affirming each other as well as holding hands when gathering around the Lord's Table to celebrate our fellowship. The aim of the linking practice is to cultivate mutuality and solidarity - to say all are welcome. For that solidarity to occur individuals must take seriously the experience of others.

"Events" can serve vitally to link us all together.  Events focus on the Gospel story itself: the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. "Event practices" provide entry ways for all to participate in the activities that present and even interpret these events from the life of Christ, especially baptism and the Lord's Supper. These critical events lead Christians to to reflect on the power of that story for reshaping individual and communal life. Congregations committed to this theological vision of God's people make their corporate decisions based on that Story.  But each congregation will have "sub-stories" that can - and do - feed resistance to the Story of reconciliation and acceptance.

Leading God's people into the beauty of it multicultural beauty is no easy task. I do not believe there is a secret recipe or a twelve step program for realizing in the "now" what God created the church to be. Diversity of any sort threatens some to the core of their being.  Yet I cannot help but believe that God is calling us to be obedient to the eschatological reality that the Gospel proclaims was the purpose of Jesus' death and resurrection. Perhaps a relational model of leadership grounded in that theological commitment and commitment to the group that transcends my own special interests, privilege and power will go far in cultivating the multi-ethnic glory of the local church. Being a prayer warrior, seeking the Holy Spirit's guidance, demonstrating the diversity and unity within Scripture and God's design, love and long hard work just might bring that messianic banquet into reality in our monolithic churches.


Notes:

1] Charles Foster, Embracing Diversity: Leadership in Multicultural Congregations (Alban Institute, 1997), 47.

2] Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996).

3] In a historic fellowship that has at least rhetorically placed emphasis upon the Great Commission it is sadly true that Churches of Christ have participated in this mentality. Though the data is somewhat dated now Michael Moore has demonstrated how the 'monocultural' outlook of mid-south Churches of Christ has hindered evangelistic work because of negative views toward "foreigners." Moore constructed a useful instrument called "Basic Language Attitude Questionnaire" for measuring fundamental attitudes of church members toward those of a different cultural background.  See Michael S. Moore, "Basic Attitudes Toward "Foreigners" among Select Churches of Christ," Restoration Quarterly 24 (1981): 225-238.

4] I have really been convicted of this especially in Christine Pohl's Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).  Hospitality is a actually a subversive practice.  Pohl writes that hospitality "recognizes the dignity and equal worth of every person and valuing their contributions, or at least their potential contributions to the larger community" (p. 61).

5] Harvie M. Conn, The American City and the Evangelical Church: A Historical Overview (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 148.

6] Foster, Embracing Diversity, p. 45

7] See the probing discussion in Carl Raschke, GloboChrist: The Great Commission Takes a Postmodern Turn (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 132 but see 116-130 in a chapter subtitled "The Church in the Postmodern Cosmopolis."

Read More

The Messianic Age is the Age of the Holy Spirit: Fourteen Spirit Saturated Themes of the Christian Life

Quotable Quote

Does the Holy Spirit do anything now except what the Word does? Do we get help, any kind or in any way, from God except what we get by studying the Bible? ... Does God answer our prayers by saying, 'Study the Bible?" - James A. Harding (1902)

I am continually amazed at the number of "baptized" believers who are as yet unconvinced that God's Holy Spirit dwells within them and among God's people.  I am continually amazed at the number of "baptized" believers who argue that God's Holy Spirit does not actually do anything in this world except through the "written word" ... i.e. the Bible.  These disciples speak of the sufficiency of the word yet I wonder if what they do when the word points to the sufficiency and power of God's Holy Spirit? The Bible is not a person within the Trinity.

Fourteen Spirit themes in the Messianic Age

According to the Word there are many activities of the Christian and the Gathered People that are empowered by the Holy Spirit himself - the third person of the Trinity.  It is quite clear in any reading of the Scriptures that believers actually need the Holy Spirit in and among them. 

1) Baptism. "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Cor 12.13).  "He saved us ... through the water of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3.5).  The Holy Spirit is the active agent in our baptism.  The Holy Spirit is the one who imparts the new life of Christ to us.  It is the Holy Spirit who becomes the bond uniting the baptized with Christ and with other Christians.  Baptism is the work of God's Spirit.

2) Sanctification. "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6.11).  As the Holy Spirit, his work is to make us holy, to sanctify us (2 Thess 2.13; 1 Pet 1.2). What the Holy Spirit begins in his work in baptism is carried on by the Holy Spirit throughout our lives.

3) Christian Growth. "By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control ..." (Gal 5.22). The fruit of the Christian life are the product of the Holy Spirit.

4) Love. "[B]ecause God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us" (Rom 5.5; cf. Gal 5.22).  The Holy Spirit is agent of bringing love to humans. The Spirit is the Spirit of God (Rom 8.9) and God is love (1 Jn 4.16), therefore there is a close connection to be expected between the Holy Spirit and love. Love is the acid test of discipleship and the greatest of all Spiritual gifts (1 Cor 13.13).  Where the Holy Spirit is ... there is love.

5) Joy. "in spite of persecution you received the the word with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit" (1 Thes 1.6).  The Holy Spirit "inspires" or yields "fruit" in the lives of God's children.  Joy, along with love, is a "mark" of the kingdom of God (Rom 14.17).

6) Morality.  The Holy Spirit is the basis of Christian ethical conduct (1 Cor 6.9-20; Rom 8.1-7)

7) Service & Obedience to God. "we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit" (Rom 7.6). All Christian service is done in the Holy Spirit and is made possible by that same Spirit.

8) Worship.  Christian worship is done by and in the Holy Spirit (Jn 4.23-24). Paul declares we "worship by the Spirit of God" (Phil 3.3). We offer "Spiritual sacrifices" to God (1 Pt 2.5) and specific "acts" are even offered "in the Spirit" or "with the Spirit" (1 Cor 14.15; on singing Eph 5.18-19).

9) Prayer. Prayer is offered to God "in the Spirit" (Eph 6.18; Jude 20).  This is not praying "in the New Testament." The presence of the Holy Spirit makes possible the tender address to the Creator God, "Abba, Father" (Gal 4.6).  And the Holy Spirit intercedes when "we do not know how to pray as we ought" (Rom 8.26).

10) Preaching. In one of the few places where the words "Spirit," "word" and "only" come together in the Bible it does not say the Spirit words only through the word - just the opposite! "because our message of the gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit ..." (1 Thes 1.5). The Holy Spirit inspired the prophets (1 Pt 1.11) and the Gospel that is his sword (Eph 6.17).

11) Leadership and Ministry. The Holy Spirit qualifies and calls persons for leadership in the NT (Acts 20.28; 1 Cor 12.4, 28).

12) Guarding the Truth.  The indwelling Holy Spirit makes possible the defense of the apostolic teaching. "Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you - guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in you" (NIV).

13) Endurance of Suffering. It is by the Holy Spirit that Christians are able to meed persecution and suffering (1 Pt 4.14).

The Holy Spirit in the Book of Acts

 The brief survey above demonstrates just how significant the Holy Spirit is in the age of the Messiah.  We live in the Age of the Spirit. I want to further demonstrate how "active" the Holy Spirit is in the life of the church by listing every occurrence of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts.  Sometimes Luke's second book is called "The Acts of the Apostles" but most scholars suggest that it is more properly titled "The Acts of the Holy Spirit."  Surely they are not far from the mark. Please note just how often the Spirit is designated the agent, the doer, the mover, the originator, etc ... and how often this is "beyond the sacred page."

Acts
1.2 "instructions through the Holy Spirit"
1.5 "baptized with/in the Holy Spirit"
1.8 "the Holy Spirit comes on you"
1.16 "which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago"
2.4 "filled with the Holy Spirit ... as the Holy Spirit enabled them"
2.17 "I will pour my Spirit on all people"
2.18 "pour out my Spirit"
2.33 "received from the Father the gift of the Holy Spirit"
2.38 "received the gift of the Holy Spirit"
4.8 "Peter filled with the Holy Spirit"
4.25 "spoke by the Holy Spirit"
4.31 "filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God"
5.3 "lied to the Holy Spirit"
5.9 "test the Spirit of the Lord"
6.3 "chose seven ... full of the Spirit and wisdom"
6.5 "full of faith and the Holy Spirit"
6.10 "the Spirit by whom he spoke"
7.51 "you resist the Holy Spirit"
7.55 "Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit"
8.15 "that they might receive the Holy Spirit"
8.16 "because of the Holy Spirit"
8.17 "they received the Holy Spirit"
8.18 "the Spirit was given ... "
8.19 "they recieved the Holy Spirit"
8.29 "the Spirit told Philip, Go ... "
8.39 "the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip"
9.17 "filled with the Holy Spirit"
9.31 "strengthened and encouraged by the Holy Spirit"
10.19 "the Spirit said to him, Simon ..."
10.38 "God anointed Jesus ... with the Holy Spirit and power"
10.44 "Holy Spirit came on all who heard"
10.45 "gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out"
10.47 "received the Holy Spirit as we have"
11.12 "the Spirit told me to have no hesitation"
11.15 "the Holy Spirit came on them as he had on us"
11.16 "baptized with the Holy Spirit"
11.24 "He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit"
11.28 "Agabus stood up and predicted through the Spirit that a severe famine would spread"
13.2 "the Holy Spirit said, 'set apart for me ..."
13.4 "sent on their way by the Holy Spirit"
13.9 "Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit"
13.52 "the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit"
15.8 "he accepted them by giving them the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us"
15.28 "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us ..."
16.6 "having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word"
16.7 "the Spirit of Jesus would not allow it"
19.2 "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
19.6 "the Holy Spirit came on them"
20.22 "compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem"
20.23 "in every city the Holy Spirit warns me"
20.28 "which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers"
21.4 "through the Spirit they urged Paul not to go"
21.11 "The Holy Spirit says"
28.25 "the Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers"

 Conclusion(s)

I sandwiched the book of Acts between the thirteenth and fourteenth theme.  I did this because we sometimes simply need to be overwhelmed by the testimony of the written word about the Spirit of God in our lives. To testify too, to say what Acts actually says is not an attack on the written word of God - it is simply to believe that word! I suggest that the reverse is actually an attack upon the apostolic word.  The question in scripture is not can the Holy Spirit work "separate and apart from the word!" That is not the biblical question at all.  The question is "does the word word separate from the Holy Spirit?" The difference is massive!  So on to number 14 ...

14) Spiritual Power. The above themes may be summarized up in the thought that the Holy Spirit is the source of Spiritual strength for living the Christian life - the power to see it through (Eph 3.16,17). All these represent but the "first fruits" of the Spirit (Rom 8.23), for the power of the Spirit will result ultimately in the resurrection of our mortal bodies in the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8.1). In the final analysis it is the Holy Spirit living in us that marks us as a Christian for without the Holy Spirit we cannot be God's (Rom 8.9). The great James A. Harding with whom we began this post has words of wisdom that state succinctly the truth on this matter ...

"Scripture does not teach that the Bible alone thoroughly furnishes the man of God for every good work, but that the Bible in addition to what had already been given does so ... I am as far as the East is from the West from believing neither God, Christ, nor the Holy Spirit can help us except by talking to us [in the word]."  (1906)

We knew this truth over a century ago.  We have forgotten it, perhaps, because we do not read the Bible enough to know. How ironic is that.

Open our eyes, O Glorious Father, as you did Elisha's servant, to know we are surrounded and engulfed by your gracious Presence. Grant us your Spirit of wisdom and revelation that we may come to experience you and the hope to which you have called us. Grant us power through your Holy Spirit, in our inner being to walk as Jesus walked, to love as Jesus loved, and to bless the poor as Jesus did. Amen.

Read More

David, Man after God's Own Heart??? 2 Sam 11-12

Greetings from the Land of Saguaros and Scorpions. Here is an expository meditation  I on the narrative of David from 2 Samuel. I do not believe any person in the Bible is presented as a "moral" example for us. Hebrews 11 says that the heroes are examples of faith not purity -- Christ is the only flawless person in the Bible. If we recognize the full humanity of the folks in the Bible we also see God's grace all the more clearly. Hebrew narrative can be difficult to preach but this is my attempt to faithfully present the narrator's message in 2 Samuel 11-12. I welcome your comments. Bobby Valentine.


David: Man After God's Own Heart??
2 Samuel 11-12

INTRODUCTION

David was Israel's second and greatest king. All kings after him would be evaluated in the light of him. He is significant in the developing concept of a Messiah that would come and redeem not only Israel but the whole world. David is a special man in the Bible - in fact he is known as the Man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13.14)! I wish I was known as that. One observer comments "David is seen repeatedly as a gentle, forgiving servant . . . Instead of retaliating for undeserved threats, David responds with mercy  . . .  David reveals
himself as a deeply sensitive and expressive man of God. In times of trouble David rises above his inner fears and feelings of helplessness to express himself through poetic songs, known as psalms" (LaGard Smith, The Narrated Bible, p. 405). David was indeed a man who sought to serve his Lord but one wonders if we have truly seen and understood his story or have we white washed it?

TROUBLE IN DAVID'S HOUSE

Our meditation arises out of one of the most interesting sections of all the Bible. Second Samuel 9ff is full of suspense and intrigue. Murder and adultery. Rebellion and insurrection. A father fleeing the wrath of his son and a brother raping his sister. Yes, this is surely not a "boring" part of Scripture!

The Books of Samuel and Kings, which together with Joshua and Judges are really one larger work like Luke and Acts,  were written during the time of the Exile to help the Israelites understand what went wrong in their country and explain WHY they are where they are at. It was a needed message. The writer lets the reader know that the dye of doom was cast from the very start. Even David, the Model King, had serious
sin in his life. Indeed the Historian devotes half of 2 Samuel to one single incident -- David's sin with Bathsheba and the impact of that sin on David's life and his house. This sin is so embarrassing that the Chronicler does not even mention it! Our author, whose purpose for writing is radically different than the Chronicler, wants us to see that the reason that David was the man after God's own heart was not because he never sinned or was without fault. Rather he is held up because he was willing to repent and humbly admit  his sin. That is what the writer is hoping to convey to his audience in his day -- grace will come when we humbly acknowledge our sin -- grace is not dependent upon perfection just a humble heart. Thus David the one who humbly admits sin is the model for the Israelite in Exile ... the message is that 'our" Exile is the fall out of our sin as David's horrendous life was the fall out.  BUT Yahweh will do for "us" what he already did for one equally full of sin.

Our story begins in 2 Sam. 11 where the Historian tells us "In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king's men and the whole Israelite army" (v. 1). Already the author has given us a clue that something is wrong -- David has not done what kings do. He did not go out with his men to battle as was his habit, instead he let Joab, his general, lead the men. So David is in the city and not in the field, which leads to restlessness.

We are told that David had insomnia (for whatever reason) and went out for some fresh air. As he went out he spied a beautiful woman named Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. David knew this to be another man's wife (v.3) but was filled with corrosive lust anyway. So he abused his power and he sent orders for her anyway so he could have a fleeting moment of sinful pleasure. Little did he know his life, and family, would shake to its core from this moment of gratification for the rest of his life.

The author hardly spares any details in describing what comes next. Bathsheba became pregnant! She sent word to David (this is obviously some time later -- perhaps David thought he would never be found out).
What do you think the Man after God's own heart did? David did what most men that get caught do: he tried to conceal his sin with lies and cover up. He sent for Uriah. Gave him a supposed holiday pass in the hopes that he would party with his wife. But Uriah was a good soldier and refused to fall into David's scheme and instead slept on the king's door step (v.9).

After repeated attempts to break Uriah's honor  -- including getting Uriah drunk -- David finally sent Uriah back to the front with a letter written by the king himself on directions for his own murder (vv. 14-15). So David has used another man's wife for his personal pleasure and gets caught. He now covers up his sins of lust, coveting and adultery with the sins of lying and premeditated murder. David broke nearly the entire Decalogue -- no wonder the Chronicler did not mention this episode in David's life! One almost wonders if he did this on the Sabbath!?

One thing we can learn from David is that sin begets sin and more sin. It becomes a vicious cycle that is so difficult to stop and most, if not all, are unable to. That is why Jesus Christ came. He came to rescue the Davids in this world and provide hope to the Bathshebas who are used up in other peoples webs of sin and deceit. Christ at the Cross broke the cycle of sin and gained victory and graciously gives that victory to us. Praise is due to Jesus!

Needless to say Uriah was murdered as David had plotted. This was premeditated murder in the first degree! And this is the man given the title "Man after God's own Heart." Shocking! But doesn't this give you a little hope? Look at what God did with with David, imagine what he can do with you and me if we allow him too.

In ch. 12 of 2 Sam. the prophet Nathan comes to the king and shares a parable with him about two men and a sheep:

"There were two men in a certain town, one rich and one poor. The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him" (12. 1-4).

David, as king, had the job of protecting the poor and powerless (read Ps 72). His reaction to the story of Nathan shows that he took that task seriously. David's sense of justice had been aroused and Nathan quickly turns that on him and says "You are the man!" (v.7). Nathan has trapped David in his own conscience.

What happens next is important for the rest of the story in Samuel and the first 2 chapters of Kings. The Prophet pronounces four punishments on David for his sin:

1) he decreed the sword would not depart from David's house (12.10). Accordingly, Absalom killed Amnon his half brother (ch.13), Joab killed Absalom (ch.18) and Solomon (the offspring of David's crime) killed Adonijah (1 Kgs 2.13-25);

2) He announced that Yahweh would raise up evil against him out of his own house (12.11). Thus Amnon raped Tamar (ch.13), Absalom led a rebellion against his father (ch. 15), and Adonijah tried to seize the throne in David's old age (1 Kgs 1.5ff);

3) He stated that Yahweh would give David's wives to a neighbor of his, who would commit adultery with them publicly (12.11). So when Absalom seized the throne, on Ahithophel's advice he had sexual relations with his father's wives in the sight of all Israel (16.21-22);

4) He declared that the child born out of David's sin would die (12.14) and he did at seven days of age (12.16-18)

I would not want to grow up in David's family!! As you can see the rest of the narrative of Second Samuel is really about God's punishment for David's sin and it reads like a soap opera (which btw is also relevant to those in Exile). For a moment of pleasure David suffered a lifetime of hell! Do we do that same thing in our lives? Sin has built in consequences that we can not escape.

David was Israel at its best!! And this is the what the Best looks like!! What Hope is there for you or me if this is the best?

GRACE VISITS DAVID

The reason David is called "the Man after God's own heart" is not because he was perfect, flawless or obeyed God precisely. Rather he is given that title because he knew there was only one place to go after we mess up. He knew that even in our sin we must flee to the Lord. David confesses his sin saying "I have sinned against the Lord" (v. 13). The Lord who is rich in mercy forgives David of his sin, but he does not remove the consequences of his crimes against Uriah and Bathsheba. However, inspite of this sin, God says David was a man who had his kind of heart. That I find incredible. God made a promise to David that his throne would last forever because David sought him. This is demonstrated in these line. Feel the remorse of David:

"Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love [hesed];
according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from sin.

For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.
Against you, you only, have I sinned and done evil in your sight,
so that you are proved right when you speak . . .

Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within
me. Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from
me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing
spirit, to sustain me." (Psalm 51. 1-4, 10-12).

David's attitude -- his humble heart -- more than anything separated him from his peers. He KNEW he was a sinner in the sight of God, most of us simply will not admit that. That is what opened him to God's infinite and marvelous grace.

This humility is perhaps the secret of understanding the gracious title given to David. Why? Because Jesus is the very revelation of God - and he "humbled himself." Like a slave he washed the disciples feet, Like a slave he gave up what was his for the sake of a humanity that would never - for the most part - believe. Like a slave he went to the Cross. He was known as the suffering servant. The essence of Jesus was his humility. David demonstrates the heart of God when he HUMBLES himself. He is the living example of the Scripture, "humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and he WILL PICK YOU UP . . ."

God honored the sinful - that is Full of Sin - but humble David! Jesus of Nazareth is the fulfillment of God's promise to David. The NT tells us that Christ sits on the throne of David ruling with justice and mercy. The story of David shows us that grace is for those who need it, not for those confident in their own righteousness.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

King David's life in many ways reminds me of Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List. Here we see the aweful power sin really has. In the life of Schindler we confront the maddening contradictions of the sinful human dilemma just as we do in the life of David. Held hostage in a fallen world, caught in the clutches of the cruelty of Adolf Hitler and captured by his own sinfulness Schindler (and David) represent humanity's best efforts in the face of evil and sin. Schindler could use Jews as slaves to pad his own pocket but also help save 1200 from slaughter in Hitler's death machine.  David could be a light to Israel, but neither were able to rescue themselves from life's corrosive and  disrupting evil. Yet in spite of his moral flaws, David stands as an `angel' in the midst of despair by being the living demonstration of the marvel of grace in one man's life.

In one scene in the movie, Schindler is at Amon Goeth's villa in Poland and they have a discussion on power. Goeth says power is fear, the ability to take life and Schindler responded with the observation that that is not power at all. Power he said was the ability to punish people by taking their life, yet instead of taking it life is
granted or "pardon" as he put it. That is real power, the ability to forgive -- give life -- when it is not deserved. That is what God did for David. That is what God did for you and I through the Son of David who died to "pardon" us from our sin and give us life instead of death. God could have justly taken David out for his crime yet he forgave and called him "the Man after his own heart."

What do you think is the greater power, to take life ruthlessly or the power to pardon when it is not deserved in any way? How you answer that question reflects how you see yourself in relation to the Cross of the Son of David and your need of it. This is the power of this narrative of shameful power grabs, brutal lust, abuse of women, cold blooded murder, and unbelievable grace ... the Spirit has placed it here for us to ruminate upon. 

Read More

Holy of Holies: Returning to Eden 4 - Song of Songs, Celebrating Sex & Egalitarian Women

“Sex becomes a search. A search for something we are missing. A quest for the unconditional embrace. And so they go from relationship to relationship. The search is about that need.

But sex is not the search for something that’s missing. It is the expression of something that’s been found. It’s designed to be the overflow, the culmination of something that a man and a woman have found in each other.  It’s a celebration of this living, breathing thing that’s happening between the two of them.” (Rob Bell, Sex God, p. 123)

“KISS ME, make me drunk with your kisses!

Your sweet lovemaking is better than wine.

You are fragrant, you are myrrh and aloes.

All the young women desire you.”

(1.2-3, my translation)

Links to Previous Studies in this Returning to Eden Series:
1 - Song of Songs, Sexuality & Spirituality 
2 - Song of Songs & The History of Denying Sexuality
3 - The Song of ALL Songs or Just a Silly Little Love Song?

A Neo-Platonic Nightmare: Celebrating Sex!

Modern Evangelical and "Church of Christ" Christians have, at times, imbibed a worldview that is on many counts not simply unbiblical but anti-biblical.  As noted in the second of these studies (see Song of Songs & the History of Denying Sexuality here) in the second and third centuries Christianity drunk deeply from the Platonic culture surrounding it. This influence is seen in two ways: 1) the Gnostic rejection of creation and the Jewish Creator god with its denial of the goodness of that creation; 2) the denigration of sexuality, sexual urges, and the denigration of women as the agents of Satan for tempting men.  Sex became a “necessary evil” for the propagation of the race. The Song of Songs was a clear problem.  To fix that perceived problem allegory was resorted too. 

Plato in his Symposium, has Socrates waxing eloquently on the status of “love” (for the non-Greek reader the love in the Symposium is eros).  At the end Socrates offers the highest form of “eros” in which we get our notion of “platonic love” from.  None of the love(s) celebrated in the Symposiumis remotely like the biblical notion.  Women for Plato were worse than the animals (he says so in another Socratic dialogue Timaeus).  The greatest love was the pursuit of wisdom as understood by Plato. The appetites of the body were to be denied for that pursuit … indeed in Platonic salvation the “immortal soul” would one day be set free from the cage of the degrading body.

Modern Christians have, even unawares, often reflected that Platonic outlook.  Even as the rest of the world has become “liberated” so to speak the church has remained Victorian.  To associate Sexuality and Spirituality is virtually unheard of.  The impression that is granted to the world and even to many of our own members is that sex is tolerated (even though everyone does it!) but it is not to be celebrated as a good in itself.  And it is a faux paux to let others know you actually enjoy it!

The Joy of It All

How different is the Hebraic worldview from that of many in modern Evangelical Christianity.  The Proverbs declare

Let your fountain be blessed,

and rejoice in the wife of your youth,

a lovely deer, a graceful doe.

May her breasts satisfy you at all times

may you be intoxicated always by

her love!

(5.18-19, BV)

The worldview of Song of Songs is not confined to the Song.  Rather the worldview of Song of Songs is the worldview of ancient Israel.  The vision of Israel, expressed in the Song of Songs is the redemption of relationships.  Rather than being antagonistic to humanity as Gen 3 prophesies, creation is the setting for shalom in the Song for the love of the couple that is as unabashed as in the Garden.

If we believe in the canon of Scripture then the Holy Spirit is not shy about sex. Sexuality is a dominant theme in the Song.  It oozes sexuality!  This is sometimes obscured because of our Platonic lenses and unhappy English translations.  The Hebrew word ‘ahaba is a word that means love.  We read in 7.6 (v.7 in Hebrew)

mah yapit u-mah na’amt ‘ahabahba-ata’anugim

How splendid and how sweet you are, O Love among [all] the delights!

Love is an abstract noun here. But ‘ahaba is a fairly rare word in Song of Songs. But even in 7.6 it is the woman’s physical charms that elicit such an exclamation.  But the word that dominates Song of Songs from the vocabulary of “love” is dodim.  We encounter this word in the second verse of the book quoted above where I rendered it “lovemaking.” The root dd occurs a total of 36 times in Song of Songs.  That this word is explicitly sexual in nature we need only read Proverbs 7.18,

Come, let us take our fill of love until morning;

let us delight ourselves with love. (NRSV)

Or the explicit Ezekiel 23.17

And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they

defiled her with their lust …(NRSV)

Though the word may be rendered “love” in Hebrew it is always sexual love.  For other examples of dodim in Song of Songs see 1.2, 4; 4.10; 5.1; 7.13; etc [1]

Here a biblical book literally begins with a description of sexual desire and it is boldly stated.

Equal Opportunity Sex in the Song of Songs

Hers. The Song of Songs has dialogue present between the woman and the man; the woman and the daughters of Jerusalem, and the woman and the night guards.  The distribution of this dialogue is far from equal. The woman is far and away the primary speaker approximately 70 percent of the words coming from her mouth.  The woman is the primary “actor” in the book.

It is true the man does speak his praise for her in 1.9-11, 15; 2.2; 4.1-7; 6.4-9 and 7.2-10.  Yet he disappears (as far as a voice is concerned) completely in chapter 8.  Even when he comes to “his garden” it is only at her invitation (4.16-5.1a).

This woman is no passive lady! She does not let him set the agenda so to speak. For example she outdoes his praises for her by bragging on him (1.16-17; 2.3). She begins the Song and she ends the Song. She is the one who speaks its refrains.  She is the one who calls on her lover to do things – draw her after him (1.4), be like a gazelle (2.17), to come out to the fields with her (7.12-14), set her as a seal on his arm (8.6) and to flee with her (8.14).  She seeks him (1.7). She “seizes” him to bring him into the chamber of love (3.4 & 8.1-2).  She is such a powerful presence that in the middle of the Song he confesses to be driven mad by just one of her glances, with but one strand of her necklace (4.9)!!

She is hardly shy or even "polite" about her public praises of her man.  Her friends, perhaps tired of her continual bragging about his traits, finally say exasperation (5.9)

mah dodek mi(n)-dod se-kakah hisba’tanu

What’s so special about your lover, that you make us swear in this way?

This is no private conversation the woman is having.  She boldly declares “He Rocks!!” Of course that is a loose paraphrase but it captures the meaning quite well. She responds to her "critics" with a gushing report on his uniqueness.  To these friends/critics(?) she mentions his gorgeous head (v.11), his eyes (v12), his facial features (v.13), how she loves his puckered lips (v.13b), how hot his body is (v.14b), his legs and voice (vv.15-16). Finally she declares he is simply her “friend” (v.16b).  Such discourse was proper for God’s People in Israel.  One can hear Plato groaning ... and perhaps not a few church people too! She repeats this public praise of her man to the watchmen.

To say that Song of Songs smolders with sensuality is to make the proverbial understatement.  But here is the reality of the situation.  This is how God desires our love to be! In the song mutuality is the atmosphere that is breathed between the man and the woman.  She is not a passive entity but is the driver behind the entire book.

His. The man is not as articulate in the Song as the woman. However he is not shy about saying things about his isha.  In chapter 4.1-7 he erupts like a volcano about her. He unashamedly celebrates (as God directs in Proverbs) the “goods” of his “babe.” The poetry is exquisitely graceful. It is sensuous and replete with erotic imagery and allusions and wonderful word plays.  Here is a man who had indeed savored his woman and become “intoxicated” (to use Proverbs 5.18f). He begins with the particle hinneh (2x!).  He says

Wow! You are so beautiful, my love

Wow! You are so beautiful! (4.1)

The man is literally arrested at this moment - stopped in his tracks - by what he perceives to be her beauty [2]. She is not just any beautiful woman but his.  He takes delight in her beauty.  Twelve times in the Song her beauty (Heb, yapa) is proclaimed (1.8; 15 [2x]; 2.10, 13; 4.1[2x], 7; 5.9; 6.1, 4, 10).  What the man’s poem revels in is the beauty, the allure, sensuality, and delight he has for his woman’s body.  He even praises her breasts no fewer than four times (4.5; 7.3, 7-8. they are mentioned a total of 8x in the Song, 1.13; 4.5; 7.3, 7-8; 8.1, 8, 10).

This last point is more important than we might think. I find this “naked” admiration of the “Shulammite’s” physical beauty refreshing.  It reminds us that at the bottom God has created us as embodied creatures, biological creatures. Our bodies Matter! How anti-Platonic and anti-Gnostic.  The man’s admiration of his woman’s body leads to the valuation of her [3].

Wrapping Up For Today

The Song of Songs is powerful medicine in the Word of God for the warped views regarding sexuality both in and out of the church.  The Jewish worldview that God created us and made us by intent to be creatures in relationship – even intimate ones – is foundational.  The Song is the antidote to perversions of Sexuality whether that is asceticism or what might be called the Porn world. 

Sexuality is more than sexual intercourse but intimacy is celebrated as wholesome before God.  In the Song sex is good in and of itself.  It is not justified on the grounds of procreation but for delight and pleasure.

The Song reminds us of what God had longed for in the Garden of Eden.  In our marriages we can participate in and mirror a world that is creational and even redeemed.  The Song gives a balanced relationship between the sexes. In our culture in which wives are often treated more as property than partners, the woman is shown here by the Spirit’s intent as the more active partner.  It is an egalitarian relationship that exists in this relationship.

The Song has to be used to become effective in counter acting the corrosive effects of a history of misapplication in Christianity.  We must become comfortable in reading the book. In our own relationships we should “practice” using exotic metaphors to communicate the wonders and uniqueness of our spouse. What a gift. 

Notes:

1] For more on dodim see Daniel Grossberg, “Nature, Humanity, and Love in Song of Songs,” Interpretation(2005), 229-242.

2] See the excellent article by F. W. Dobbs-Allsop, “The Delight of Beauty and Song of Songs 4.1-7,” Interpretation(2005), 261-277, especially p. 262.

3] See the delightful discussion of this and similar “flavors” in Carey Ellen Walsh, Exquisite Desire: Religion, The Erotic and the Song of Songs (Fortress Press, 2000), 105-132.

Read More