MY 500TH POST

I have been blogging for over twelve years and it seemed to me that number 500 should be something special; but since no particular topic came to mind, I'll just post some rambling thoughts.

I keep a hard copy of every post, and save them in 3-ring notebooks of 100 each. So this one will fill up my fifth.  The first four notebooks took about two years each to fill up, but this last one took four years.  It's not that I have run out of stuff to say, it's just that much of what I have to say I've said before and I feel that I'm boring enough without repeating myself too much.  Plus, often when I think I need to speak up on a matter, I find that someone else has already written an article saying it better.

If there are any out there who have been reading this blog regularly over the yearsthey may feel that my thinking has changed in many matters, but as I re-read my old posts I feel that I have been reasonably consistent (although there are a few posts I feel need correcting or updating and a few need to be thrown out.)  I feel rather that my thinking has sharpened in many ways.  I'm only 81 years old and still learning.  Writing does have that effect on ones thinking, or as Sir Francis Bacon said:  "Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man."

Though I have undoubtedly failed many times, I have attempted to keep my thinking and writing within a Biblical/Christian world view and I am open to correction whenever I appear to stray from this goal.  I also have attempted to think with a "liberal" mind, by which I mean a mind open to new truths.  And I believe strongly that there is such a thing as truth and that "All truth is God's truth." (Though I can't find an original source for that quote.)

I believe that ethics, morals and politics have been changing within American culture, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better.  And sad to say, ethics, morals and politics have also been changing within the church, at times going right along with those of the culture around us, at other times in a reactionary fashion.  This, I suppose has not been happening only in my last 12 years of blogging, nor in the years of my lifetime, but since the beginning of the human race.

"If you see something, say something" is a current exhortation.  Well I suppose that much of what I write on this blog is just that; when I see something that I feel requires me to speak, I must speak.

I have found quite a few would agree with my thoughts and quite a few would disagree.  I still welcome any comments.  A few requests for those who disagree:

            - If you are a Christian please make sure of where your disagreements come from.  Are they compatible with a Biblical/Christian worldview? It's very difficult to resolve matters when we are starting from different points.

            - Please avoid ad hominem arguments and please avoid trying to put me in a box and please don't think you've proven anything because you've called me names. ("You think that way because you're a ...!")  I've lately been accused of being a "liberal blowhard," a "Marxist," an "American-bashing historical revisionist," "delusional" and a few more.

Actually I take some comfort when disagreements and criticisms degenerate into name calling.  I figure I must be saying something right when these are the only arguments that can be mustered.

I welcome any suggestions for further posts.  Of course, then I'll have a buy a new 3-ring binder.

SOME THOUGHTS ON HONORING THE FLAG

For years Uni and I lived in a two-story townhouse in Houston.  From an upstairs' window we could look down on the street behind us which was filled with neat single story homes.  In the yard directly behind us was a large American flag flying from a tall pole.  It flew day and night, rain or shine.  When we first moved in, the flag looked brand new - bright red, white and blue.  But as the years passed, the flag grew worn and frayed around the edges.  Then it began to turn gray.  Pieces of it seemed to disappear.  After more years all we could see was a worn gray rag flying from the pole.  It grew smaller and smaller until one day it was gone.

In the mall the other morning, we saw a pleasant looking middle-aged lady carrying an umbrella that looked like an American flag, stars and stripes and all.  It was wet and dripping from the rain.

We see people today wearing garments that appear to be made from American flags.  Even shorts, so they can sit on Old Glory.  We see flags waved in TV commercials, especially preceding national holidays, which seem to be becoming nothing more than opportunities for sales.

I suppose all these folks believe they are patriotic, honoring and respecting our flag by displaying it boldly.  Are they?  I don't believe so!  I was taught as a child and later as a Marine Reserve, that the American flag is to be treated with respect, even reverence. There used to be rules for its proper display.

And then there are those who display a Confederate battle flag boldly, sometimes right alongside Old Glory.  Displaying a flag that represents a traitorous rebellion against the United States does not seem to me to be honoring the flag.  And again these folks feel that they are patriotic. Are they?

Some - mostly African American - NFL players have refused to stand while the National Anthem is being played; some kneeled; some simply sat on the bench.  They said that they were doing this to protest injustice.  Many of their white teammates have joined them.  And these people were immediately condemned as dishonoring the flag, often by those same persons who had dishonored the flag in the ways mentioned above.  They were even called SOBs by our President who said they should be fired!.

I suspect that this sort of righteous indignation is not only pure hypocrisy, but it is fueled by racism.  The men who kneeled were not dishonoring the flag but demanding the "liberty and justice for all" that that flag stands for.

I believe the flag is to be respected.  I still stand for the National Anthem, but I also believe that those who kneel have every right to do so; in fact, I believe they are honoring the flag much more than those who treat it as a rag or an article of clothing, or an umbrella.  I suppose that someday I may find myself kneeling with them.

But while the American flag is to be respected and honored, it is honored for what it stands for, not as a salute to "the military" as many contend.  Nor is the flag to be treated as an object of worship.  It should have no place in a church sanctuary.  It should not be wrapped around the cross.  I believe that when we confuse our Christianity with some sort of display of "patriotism" we are committing blasphemy.

Jesus demanded that we love Him over every other human relationship (Matthew 10:37).  I would think that includes our country and its flag.  He demanded that we take up our cross and follow Him (verse 38).  He didn't tell us to take up our flag.

HILLBILLY ELEGY

This book came out last year at about the same time the book White Trash came out.  The authors were interviewed on the various news and talk programs on TV. Both received about the same amount of public exposure and both books seem to be about similar topics.  As the book White Trash was about twice as thick (at the same price) as the other, as well as appearing to be the scholarly one, I chose it over the other.  However, I recently found a used copy of Hillbilly Elegy at the Half-Price book store, so I purchased it and Uni and I read it together. (I confess I had to look up "elegy."  Webster defines it as "a song or poem expressing sorrow or lamentation especially for one who is dead.")
 

Hillbilly Elegy, subtitled A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis was written by a young man named J. D. Vance, an ex-marine, a Yale Law School graduate and "a principal at a leading Silicon Valley investment firm." This is, as the title tells us, a memoir.  The author tells us of life growing up in rust belt Ohio in a lower middle class  family with deep roots in the hills of Kentucky, from where his grandparents had migrated after WWII. Obviously, Vance has lived out "the American Dream;" he has risen above his raisings; and yet they are still with him.

Though his family's account is filled with tales of alcoholism, drug abuse, physical abuse, poverty, family breakups and struggles, it is not much different, I believe, from that of many families in America today.  And though the book was a real page-turner and well-written, Uni and I both wondered as we read, why is this book so popular; why is it still a best-seller when the other book mentioned above seems to have fallen from public view?  This question was on our minds all through the reading.  I think I have some idea.

As we were reading the stories of the family and families in the book, Uni and I were brought back to our own extended families and those among whom we grew up.  We began to realize that either of us could have written similar stories.  Often we would stop reading to tell or re-tell stories of our own pasts which were quite similar to Vance's.  We may not have had such a colorful background nor have risen quite so far, but we share much in common with the author.

It's tempting here to do a bit of comparison, to relate some tales of the pains as well as the blessings of our own family backgrounds.  I'll resist, although a search through previous posts on this blog would reveal quite a bit.  I'm sure that any who read this post could also come up with similar tales.  In fact, what impressed me was the ordinariness of Vance's story.

Which brings me back to my question: why does this book continue to be a best-seller? Why is it a best-seller at all?  I believe that the answer is that people who read books like this have no (or little) real idea about how people like Vance's family live.  They know nothing about the lower-middle class and their struggles and problems.  To those who have "made it" or who are of the second  or third generation of those who escaped the "hillbilly" life, this is like reading of an alien country.  They had to read about it through the eyes of one of their own, one who had "made it."

Vance's struggles are very much like those of many of us or at least of those we know.  He tells of his own anguish as he's bounced from family to family, of his struggles to fit in and not ever feeling like he has, of his "Mamaw" - his one anchor in all the turmoil, of his dabblings in Christianity. (We can only hope he continues in this quest.)  He pauses occasionally in his story telling to offer brief analyses and criticisms of the plight of rust-belt families.  He seems to be still trying to put it all together, as many of his readers are probably still trying to do.

I believe that while the book will be informative for those readers who have never been exposed to this sort of life, it will also be cathartic for those of us who find ourselves in these pages.

GOD AND COUNTRY

Well, it's that time of the year when I feel like skipping church.  Memorial Day and Fourth of July weekends, and later Veterans' Day, are usually extremely uncomfortable times to attend Sunday morning worship services.  There will usually be a bit of flag-waving and we'll sing patriotic hymns; perhaps we'll see a slide show praising our Founding Fathers or veterans or something like that.  Many in the congregation will seem more enthusiastic than usual.  And I - and I suppose a few others - will feel very uncomfortable - that is if we attend at all.  (I will also!  Uni)

Perhaps some of my readers will agree with me; some on the other hand, on reading the above paragraph may question my patriotism, even my devotion to Jesus.  My contention, however, is that my commitment to the Lordship of Christ precludes the above behavior.  As I understand it, Jesus does not wish to share the platform with others.

This has nothing to do with my "patriotism"!  I love my country; I pray for it; I thank God for America every day.  I try to perform my duties as a citizen:  I pay my taxes; I vote; I fly my flag on appointed days; I even served as a Marine Reserve.  But this has every-thing to do with my commitment to Christ!

Those of the early church in the Roman Empire confessed "Jesus is Lord" in spite of the demands that they confess "Caesar is Lord."  And many died for that distinction.  The Roman Empire was not too concerned about the religious beliefs of its subjects, as long as they could make the required confession.  But the followers of Jesus could not do so.  For them there was only one Lord.  Should it not be the same for us?

America is not a theocracy; it is not a "Christian nation"; it is a secular democracy and as such, it is part of "the kingdom of the world," which will one day "become the Kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ" (Revelation 11:15).  But we're not there yet.

I  may attend some Fourth of July celebration, but I'll probably stay home and watch the celebrations on TV.  I'll grow teary eyed as patriotic hymns are sung and as I sing along.  I may even post Ray Charles singing "America the Beautiful" on my facebook page.  But I pray that I may always recognize that my allegiance to my country, as all my other allegiances will be under the Lordship of Christ.

OUR FRIEND AND MENTOR GLADIS

Last Friday, May 6, Uni felt an urge to call Gracie, the daughter of our old friend Gladis Gibson, in El Paso, TX.  We had heard that Gladis was in hospice care and her health was rapidly declining.

When Gracie answered, Uni said simply, "I called to ask how your mother is doing?"

Gracie replied, "She passed this morning."

This was not a blow to us, as we had known it was coming for quite awhile; nevertheless, we still grieved.  Gladis would have been 92 on her next birthday.

We had known Gladis for over 60 years.  She and her husband Bill had had a great influence on our walk with Christ during that period.  I was honored to do Bill's memorial service in 2009 when he went to be with the Lord.

I first met Gladis and Bill in 1956.  I was 19 years old and it had been only a year since I had committed my life to Christ.  "Churchy" things were still new to me.  I knew that the little church we attended supported foreign missionaries, but at first my opinion of missionaries was that they were social misfits, isolationists, old maids - people who couldn't make it in the "real world."  Two events happened to change that opinion.

The first was a news item about what the world considered a horrible tragedy.  On a sandy beach along an unknown river deep in the jungles of Ecuador, a number of young American missionaries were savagely killed by members of a tribe known then as Aucas.  The reports of their discovery made headlines throughout the country.  LIFE magazine did a huge spread of pictures.  Radio and TV commentators discussed the event.  It was, for much of America, a first exposure to independent missions and to many it seemed senseless.  But this event had an impact on many in my generation.

The second was the meeting with the Gibsons, then in their 30's, not long after that event.  Bill was from our little church in Michigan and Gladis was from Oklahoma.  They had met in Bible college and had been sent out by our church as missionaries with Gospel Missionary Union, an independent mission organization.  They were at the time on a one year furlough from serving in the jungles of Ecuador.

Bill and Gladis had served with those martyred men and their families.  They were dear friends and had known of the plans to bring the Gospel of Christ to this stone-age tribe that had never had contact with "civilization" before.  They had prayed and planned with these men and their wives and families.  Bill regaled us and our church youth group with stories of their adventures in the jungles.  He had even flown over the Auca village with Nate Saint, the missionary pilot, one of the martyrs.

The Gibsons were not simply good story tellers, they were normal people, yet people who had given their lives completely to Christ, and they spoke of those martyred men as being ordinary people just as they were.  I was impressed with Gladis when she played softball with us at a church picnic; she was stronger than many of us men.  She could hit harder and run faster than any of us.  As she later confessed, "I spend a great amount of my time trekking and sometimes running, through the jungle."

The Gibsons took Uni and me under their wings.  They mentored us - not by teaching us theology or how-tos, but simply by modeling the Christian life.

Later, when we moved from Michigan to Texas, we lost track of each other for a few years.  Then when I was attending Dallas Theological Seminary, Bill looked me up and found me in the coffee room.  The Gibsons were then serving in El Paso as directors of GMU's ministry in South Texas and Northern Mexico.  The friendships resumed.

Down through the years, Bill Gibson would sometimes speak at churches I pastored.  They'd also sing and Gladis would play her accordion.  I was privileged to be the speaker at the biennial retreats held for the South Texas missionaries, as well as in the little chapel where they were active.  Sometimes I would receive a phone call from Gladis informing me, "Our church bulletin says that you will be preaching on _______.”  We'd make arrangements at home, jump in the car and drive to El Paso for the service.

Gladis and Bill never ceased being missionaries for Christ, even after they retired.  They continued to serve in Grace Chapel in El Paso.  They started a Bible study in the mobile home park where they lived; it's still going on.  Gladis served as an R.N. in a clinic.  When she could no longer care for herself and needed to live in an independent living facility, she immediately started some Bible studies in both English and Spanish, with other residents and the care-giving personnel.

"Precious in the eyes of the LORD is the death of His saints."  Psalm 116:15

(Also see:  THECHURCH OF THE OPEN DOOR.)

JESUS AMONG OUR OTHER IDOLS

Our Sunday School class has been studying the Book of Acts.  We are moving slowly through the early chapters which relate the beginnings and early history of the church.  These chapters describe the church's early preaching and growth.  We've been discussing the conflicts within the church and the persecutions without.  One of my main goals has been to compare our 21st century church with that of the 1st century.
 

One of the seeming points of contrast is that of the miraculous:  the early church experienced genuine miracles regularly; our church doesn't.  And yet we hear of miracles and healings occurring in the church elsewhere.  So I invited a member of our church who had recently been on a mission trip to Africa to describe what he had seen and experienced.

As he spoke, (I must confess), I got sidetracked by his comparison of the traditions of the church he had visited, with our own church.  One in particular impressed me.  He told how, while we would think that we should give Bibles to all the church people, the church leaders there did not.  Bibles were kept at the church, where they could be studied.  The people would come, read and study, then leave the Bibles at the meeting place when they returned home.

The reason given for was that every household has a shelf on which sit the various idols of their culture.  The fear was that if a person were given a Bible it would be carried home and placed on the shelf to become just one more idol to be paid lip service to.  (I'm not here attempting to discuss the wisdom of this policy; I'm sure that experience had taught the church leaders a need for this concern.)

While our speaker appeared to think of this as an interesting and quaint contrast between two cultures, my mind focused on the similarities.  These people in Africa who were still burdened with the paganism of their past, were tempted to so something that we educated European Americans are guilty of.

Isn't that what we do?  Don't we take our Bibles home and set them on a shelf along with our other  gods?  And not just the Book, but also the God whom that Book reveals.

Have we placed our Christianity right there along with all the other goals, desires and pleasures we seek?  Is God - is Jesus Christ - merely a supplement to our life?  Is He someone we can go to when needed, but normally left to sit neatly on the shelf to receive an occasional dusting along with the other idols and His Book?

Didn't God tell His Old Covenant people, "You shall have no other gods besides Me."?  (Yes, that Hebrew expression can be translated "besides.")  Didn't He say, "I the LORD your God am a jealous God."?  Yet I fear that we want Him to sit conveniently on the shelf next to our other gods.

What are they?  Well, we each have our own pantheon.  But here in 21st century America, I suspect that Mammon is there in a prominent place, along with Civil Religion and many other minor deities.

I have no easy solution.  I fear that we deal with the problem the same way that that African church does:  we keep God at church where He is convenient when we need Him.

Perhaps we should start by cleaning the idols off the shelf into the (metaphorical) trash can and bringing God home from church and giving Him the prominent position He deserves - and demands.

 

Romans 12:1-2

 

 

THE CLASS REUNION

In July Uni and I attended the 60 year reunion of my High School Class of 1955.  It was different than previous reunions - a bit slower and with a few more serious moments and a lot fewer in attendance.

A few weeks earlier I had been called by Shirley, one of the "girls" who were in charge of the festivities and asked if I would give the invocation.  I told her that I'd be honored to, but I wanted her to know that I'd be praying in Jesus' Name, as that's the only way I pray.  She said that would be fine.

Usually when I'm asked to pray at a public occasion I pray extemporaneously - off the cuff - though I usually give the prayer some thought beforehand.  However, Shirley and I had quite a lengthy phone conversation beforehand, so I knew that this occasion would be different than any other.  Many of my classmates had passed away in the five years since the previous reunion; most of those of us who are left are not as healthy physically, emotionally and memory wise.  So this prayer would not be just me in communication with God.  I would need to attempt to express some of the feelings and desires of all of us.  So I spend many hours writing out my thoughts and rewriting them.

At the Saturday evening dinner/dance, we sat with two of my classmates I had known since grade school, and their spouses.

My class has a reunion every five years and with each gathering our number decreases.  Many have passed on.  Many are unable to attend for health and other reasons.  And yet each gathering seems more open and intimate.  As someone observed, there are no more cliques.  We are no longer jocks, cheerleaders, nerds, wallpapers.  We're more and more like family.  We're glad to see each other.  Maybe it's simply that we are survivors.

Anyway, when it came time for me to pray I gave a brief introduction and then read the prayer that I had typed out, of course with ad-lib remarks.  The following is my introduction and prayer as I recall it:

We're told in the 90th Psalm that:  "As for the days of our life, they contain 70 years; Or if due to strength 80 years ..."  (Psalm 90:10a)  All of us here have passed that 70 year mark and we are now in what we might refer to as our extended warranty.

Heavenly Father:  We grieve for those classmates who are no longer with us, who have passed on.  We pray for the spouses and families of those who have passed - for comfort and for the assurance of seeing their loved ones again.  We recognize too that our time for joining them is drawing nearer.

But Father, we thank you for those who are still here, for those who have gathered here - to renew old acquaintances and friendships, to retell tales of our high school adventures and misadventures, to get caught up with what's been happening in our classmates' lives over the past 60 years.  We thank you especially for those who have worked hard to make all the arrangements for this affair.

Tonight we'll be doing a lot of comparing - weight gains and losses, wrinkles, hair loss, aches, pains and illnesses, the latest meds.  Help us not to be proud or ashamed of our physical condition.  Forgive us if we are.

And we thank you Father that you love us.  We thank you most of all that you loved us enough that you sent your Son to die for us. We thank you too that you approve of our having a good time with old friends.  When your Son Jesus was on earth, he seemed to enjoy eating and drinking.  He even provided wine for a wedding!  We might even imagine Him here with us, digging into a good meal and enjoying a drink or two.  Perhaps we can even imagine Him putting in a few rounds on the dance floor.

So we ask you Heavenly Father, to bless this party.  For some this may be our last.  Bless the food, the drinks and the fellowship.  We pray that all we do and say here would be pleasing to you.

We pray in the name of your Son Jesus, our Savior.  Amen

Later a few people commented on the prayer and/or thanked me for it.  One comment I really loved was, "It was like you were inviting Jesus to join the party."  I guess I was.

We ate, had a few drinks and Uni and I danced a bit.  Most of the dances were slower than at previous reunions, though I did do The Twist with Diane (or was it Joanne; I still can't tell those twin sisters apart).  Dancing was supposed to be till 11, but when the one-man band came back from his 10 o'clock break, most of us were gone.

The next day was our picnic.  Few showed up.  Guess it was just too much excitement.

We're looking forward to Uni's reunion next summer - class of '56, same High School!

SARCASM AND SATIRE

I often have difficulty communicating with people who do not appreciate sarcasm and satire whether used by me or others.    They tell me that it signifies a weak argument or that it is hurtful - even un-Christian.    (See:  FRANCIS & CHARLIE  -  1/19/2015.)    I've tried to ex- plain that these are legitimate ways of conveying truth and have even given examples from the Bible:  the Hebrew prophets, the apostles, even Jesus used it frequently.

I began to think that possibly those who object to sarcasm may have difficulty under- standing it - perhaps their brains are wired differently, like even the brilliant genius Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory.  I recall my frustrations in teaching Bible Study Methods at the College of Biblical Studies.  There were a few - though very few - students who just couldn't catch on, not only to sarcasm and irony, but to similes and metaphors.  As I recall, their inability to grasp these and other figures of speech had little to do with their intelligence or lack of the same.  Perhaps the objections I was receiving were from those who just couldn't get it.  Perhaps.

However, I am now of the opinion that many who object to sarcasm do so, not because they don't get it, but because they do.  They don't like it because it points out their faulty thinking or behavior.  In other words, if your argument is weak, if you can't refute what's being said, condemn the method of argument - or even better the one who uses sarcasm to make his argument.  Use ad hominem; sometimes a good offense is a good defense.

Often in the Gospels we're told that Jesus' hearers didn't catch on to His use of parables - "You'll keep on hearing but won't understand" (Matthew 13:14).  But now and then they did understand.  "And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them" (Matthew 21:4, 5).  And what was their reaction?  "... they tried to seize Him" (verse 46).

So if you object to sarcasm, ask yourself why you are objecting.  Maybe it fits!

IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME!

When I teach or preach from the New Testament, I usually read and translate directly from my Greek text.  I don't do this to show off or to impress people; most who hear me don't even realize I'm doing so, other than those who ask the occasional question as to what translation I use.  (I usually tell them I use the BLT.  If that doesn't satisfy I explain that BLT stands for Bill's Literal Translation).  Of course some actually notice and make the comment mentioned above.

I have been reading and studying my Greek Testament regularly for nearly 40 years.  One requirement for my Master's Degree in New Testament, besides grammatical and exegetical studies was to read through the entire Greek New Testament at least once (though most of it was read more than that).  I was hooked and since then I have read it through at least once a year.  I actually feel more at home in it than in my English New Testament.  I have also read and continue to read in my Hebrew Old Testament (with difficulty) as well as in the Septuagint.  I have never formally taught Greek other than a one hour credit class at the College of Biblical Studies - Houston, entitled:  "The Greek New Testament for English Readers."  I have occasionally tutored or mentored a few persons in the study as well.

So when a friend posted an article on facebook entitled "3 Ways Not To Use Greek in Bible Study" it got my attention.

Though the author of the article concedes that "there is nothing wrong with wanting to know some things about the language that God gave us for the New Testament," he warns us that "there are also dangers involved."  While after my first reading I found myself in essential agreement with the article and even hit "like" on the post, I felt a bit uncomfortable and felt that even though the author asserts that he is "not trying to discourage anyone from studying Greek," he was doing just that.  I also felt that it could become an excuse for those who are teachers and preachers, for neglecting the original languages.

I agree with most of what the article states.  I feel along with this writer that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and I agree with his three points - to a point.  I'd like to add my thoughts to the points made there which I see as actually two.

Point 1:  "Usage Trumps Etymology:  Avoiding the Root Fallacy" and Point 3:  "Context is King:  Avoiding the Overload Fallacy" seem to be saying much the same thing. "... a word's meaning is not determined by its etymology, but by its usage."  "Most words don't have a 'literal meaning' at all - rather, they have a range of possible meanings (the technical term is 'semantic range.'"  "Context usually narrows the possible meanings to one (an exception would be ... puns)."

Point 2:  "Scholars are Necessary:  Avoiding the Cult of the Amateur" seems clear except that it is used simply to reinforce Points 1 and 3.

The article appears to assume that word study is a major aspect in doing Greek exegesis.  Actually the sort of studies described requires little knowledge of the original languages, just some skill in the use of a concordance, which is available to the English reader.

One does not have to be skilled in the original languages to be a gifted Bible teacher.  I myself studied and taught the Bible with a reasonable amount of proficiency for many years before my formal education.  Many of those from whom I learned had no proficiency in the languages; some didn't even have that good a command of our native English!

But I contend that a familiarity with the language in which our Bible was originally written is an asset which the use of helps can only partially provide.  I write this at the desk in my study with volumes of helps - concordances, lexicons and commentaries on the shelves behind me.

As far as the use of words, I agree that usage trumps etymology and that context is king.  But knowledge of the "original" or "root" meanings of words brings a color to the book that simple context definitions cannot.  As in any language, words have many meanings, even in the same context.  Much of language is metaphorical and the careful reader or listener understands that words do have more than one meaning and that though a word may have a single specific meaning in a particular context, it often carries with it its other meanings.  Puns, double entendres, sarcasm and subtle nuances are much more common than a literalistic reader might suppose.

Some examples:

·       Jesus is in the garden of Gethsemane with His disciples on the night before His betrayal.  He is burdened down and leaves them to go off alone to pray.  He tells them:  meinate hode kai gregoreite (Mark 14:34).  Most translations, even modern ones translate this something like "stay here and watch," which is probably what was meant.  But gregoreo has the "original" meaning of "stay awake."  To translate it simply as "watch" would be accurate, but the reader would miss the irony of the fact that they fell asleep.

·       Paul exhorts his readers many times, peripateite (Ephesians 4:1, 17; 5:1, 15, etc.).  Some modern versions (though not all) translate this word simply as "live," referring to Christian behavior or conduct.  But the "root" meaning of pateo is "walk" and the prefix peri has the meaning of "around."  The Christian is not exhorted to passively "live" but to have an active life - a life in motion.

And while word meanings do change over time, some retain their meanings over centuries, even millennia.  When Paul tells his readers that the Holy Spirit is our arrabon (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13, 14), he is using a word that already in his day was 2,000 years old; it was actually an ancient Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic) word.  Its first biblical usage is in the Hebrew Old Testament, Genesis 38:17, 18, 20 in the spicy story of Tamar and Judah.  Judah contracts for sex with his widowed daughter-in-law Tamar who has disguised herself as a prostitute.  He promises her "a kid from the flock" for her favors (the going rate?) and gives her his seal, cord and staff as an arrabon.  The word in Paul is translated variously as "earnest," "pledge," "down payment," but I suspect that his astute readers may have recalled the earlier context.  (The word is still found today in modern Greek and is used of an engagement ring.)

And then there are synonyms.  No two words have precisely the same meaning.  While synonyms have an overlap in meaning and in many contexts seem to be used simply for variety, there are many instances where their differences in meaning are quite clear.

·       The words allos and heteros can simply be translated interchangeably in many contexts as "other" or "another."  In 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, Paul uses allos six times and heteros twice with no clear difference.  Most English translations translate both words consistently as "another."  But in his letter to the Galatians, while he uses both words in one context, their subtle differences in meaning are clear.  "I am amazed that so quickly you have moved away from the One who called you in the grace of Christ to another (heteros) gospel - which is not another (allos) ..."  Most modern translations translate heteros here as "a different ..." (Galatians 1:6, 7) bringing out the difference in meaning.

·       The author of the article states, "Turns out that agape and philos (I believe that he meant to say philia) aren't really different kinds of love after all ..."  Apparently this is something that he learned from "scholars" in his "first couple of weeks of class."  However, while the words are synonyms and in many instances may simply be translated as "love," a careful study of all the New Testament usages will demonstrate that there are clear differences.  See:  I LOVE YOU LORD and WHAT IS LOVE?

And of course, language studies are much more than studies of word meanings.  Grammar is an important part.  Greek verb tenses differ from our English tenses.  For instance, while in English we have a simple past tense, Greek has two,  the aorist and the imperfect, which give much more color to the action.  To oversimplify (always dangerous) the aorist presents a snapshot:  "he ran," while the imperfect presents a motion picture:  "he was running."  English often has to use "helper words" to get the same color.

One example:  in John 11:35 we read edakrusen ho lesous.  Normally this is translated "Jesus wept."  But the verb dakruo here is not the normal word for weeping but is related to the word dakruon, "tear."  It is also in the aorist tense.  This, the shortest verse in the Bible, is thus packed with meaning.  It could be translated "Jesus burst into tears!"  The Greek reader could catch this.  Also see:  GRAMMAR AND THE GREAT COMMISSION.

I agree with Point 2  on the value of scholarship.  However, scholars quite often disagree with one another.  If we simply compare Bible translations we will frequently find conflicts.  We all - scholars or lay persons or those in between - fail to distinguish degrees of certainty and can be dogmatic where we have little or no right to be.  This is where some knowledge of the original languages can be of great help - not to arrive at new interpretations but to check on existing ones.  In regard to the experts, we should "trust but verify!"

So, while I would encourage the English reader that we have some excellent translations and excellent commentaries that can be trusted, I would also encourage the student - especially if you teach - to dig a little deeper using a good concordance and lexicon.  Get the feel for the Bible. Remember it's a lifetime process.

And do watch out.  A little learning can be a dangerous thing!

DEATH OF A KING

I recently finished reading the book, Death of a King:  The Real Story of Dr. Martin Luther King's Final Year, by Tavis Smiley with David Ritz.
 

This is a powerful book but not one to read when you're down.  Though it is brief and well-written, I found I had to chew on it in small bites and I was thankful that it was composed in brief chapters.  There are other, fuller biographies of Dr. King, which I would recommend, such as David Garrow's Bearing the Cross or Taylor Branch's 3-volume set subtitled America in the King Years.  These books will fill in much of what we need to know about Dr. King's life and the Civil Rights' movement in which he was involved.

But this book is different; it is as the title tells us, only concerned with the year preceding Dr. King's assassination.  It does not delve into the details of the movement and its surrounding politics.  It tells little about the rival factions in the movement.  It tells us nothing about Dr. King's assassin.

Smiley is concerned rather with Dr. King himself (whom he refers to as "Doc"), as much as possible getting inside his head.  He uses memoirs and personal interviews with Dr. King's associates and friends.  He delves into his speeches and writings which reveal much about the man.  Smiley does an excellent job; the reader can feel the author's empathy.  Clearly, Dr. King is his hero, yet he is not afraid to portray him warts and all.

The story begins on April 4, 1967, exactly one year before the assassination, with King's "dramatic and controversial speech in impassioned opposition to the Vietnam War" (page 5 - Smiley quotes portions of this and other speeches throughout the book.)

Though Dr. King had spoken against the war before his April 4th speech, it was this speech that marked his final break with the Johnson administration.  One of the great tragedies of our time was the break between these two men.  Lyndon Johnson and Martin King had both previously worked tirelessly together on Civil Rights' legislation.  Lyndon Johnson was and probably still should be regarded as the President who did the most for Civil Rights since Abraham Lincoln.  But his involvement in and escalation of what is perceived by many as a senseless war, drew a shadow over what he had accomplished.

Dr. King saw the war as most wars are, a rich man's war fought by poor men.  The draft took a disproportionate number of those same African-Americans for whom Dr. King - and President Johnson - had fought hard to bring into full rights in the mainstream of America.

And so the man who was recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was now perceived by many Americans as a traitor, along with others in the Peace Movement.  As Dr. King said, speaking of the nation's attitude toward Muhammad Ali, "There is a very dangerous development in the nation to equate dissent with disloyalty" (page 50).  There were many in the Civil Rights' movement at this time, though who were still supportive of the war, so Dr. King found himself out of step with many of his fellow workers.

Add to this the fact that Dr. King's non-violent path of civil disobedience was perceived by many younger people in the Civil Rights' movement, as being too slow and ineffective.  The more radical Black Power movement was coming to the fore.  And so his following was being shrunk from many directions. All of this on top of the white racism and hatred that he continually experienced.

Dr. King was becoming more concerned not simply with matters of race but also of poverty.  He spent much of this final year attempting to organize a "Poor Peoples' March" on Washington.  And there was the Sanitation Workers' strike in Memphis which he was working in support of.

King seemed to be sliding deep into depression and like many, this drove him into greater activity.  We find him flying from city to city, speaking and organizing.  He appeared exhausted emotionally and physically when he arrived in Memphis.

The story ends with tragic simplicity:

          "Then a shot rings out.

          The bullet finds its mark,

          Doc falls.

          At age thirty-nine, his life on earth ends."

The epilogue contains a eulogy that had been delivered earlier by Dr. King for Joseph Reeb, a murdered white civil rights' worker.  Smiley apparently feels it is a fit tribute to the man who gave it.  And we the readers do so as well.

Tavis Smiley is a well-known host of both PBS and Public Radio programs, as well as a prolific author.  His empathy, even love, for the man who is his subject is clear throughout the book.  He was less than four years old when Dr. King was murdered and so his knowledge is all second hand, yet it feels as though he has known him personally.

I am ashamed to confess that as a white evangelical Christian living in the north, I had little interest in or sympathy with Dr. King and all he was accomplishing during his brief life and ministry.  It was only after I moved south to Houston, TX in 1966 that I even began to understand.

At the time of Dr. King's assassination I was working in the engineering department of a large oil tool company.  As I recall, there were well over 100 men in one huge room (all white, of course).  When news of the assassination was heard, there was celebration.  No work was done for much of the day.  I had not witnessed such "joy" since Japan surrendered after WWII!  Dr. King's death was regarded by all - at least those who were vocal - as some sort of victory.  Of course, this was mixed with "righteous indignation" at those "n____s" who rioted afterward.

Though I didn't speak up, I realized that as a follower of Jesus, I was on a different side than my co-workers, even though many of them also claimed to be Christians.  This was not my first epiphany, but it surely was the strongest.  I believe that many white evangelicals of my day, while we may not have seen ourselves as racists, were simply indifferent as to how racism - even our passive racism - is in total contradiction to the life and teachings of Christ.  I fear this is still a lingering problem.

I strongly recommend this book.  Read it with a copy nearby of A Testament of Hope - the Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., edited by James M. Washington.  I'd also recommend one or both of the biographies mentioned above.

BIBLICAL IGNORANCE

A recent Christianity Today article (Biblical Illiteracy by the numbers Part 1:  The Challenge) gave some stats on Bible reading habits among church-going people.  The percentages given of those who read are:

          19% - every day

          26% - a few times a week

          14% - once a week

          22% - at least once a month

          18% - rarely or never

Of course these percentages don't tell the whole story.  While I'll accept them as reasonably accurate, they don't tell how much these people actually read when they do read - a verse? - two verses? - a chapter? - a book?

One of my first classes in seminary was Old Testament Introduction, taught by Dr. Bruce Waltke.  The class covered historical backgrounds and various theories of biblical composition.  Dr. Waltke impressed us all with his vast knowledge, not only of the Bible, but (it seemed) with every book and study written about it.  He was on a first-name basis with every character in the Bible and used their stories as illustrations in all his lectures.  Complete focus was required to keep up with him and pity the student who did not come with some previously acquired amount of biblical knowledge.

In one of the early classes, I recall one of my fellow students meekly raising his hand and saying, "Dr. Waltke, many of us aren't as familiar with the Bible as you are and we'd appreciate it if you wouldn't use so many biblical illustrations.  They're hard to follow."

Now Dr. Waltke was not at all threatening in appearance; he looked like the meek quiet scholarly type, with his thick glasses and balding forehead.   But he was feared!  I believe we all were trembling in fear for our fellow student as Dr. Waltke lowered his glasses on his nose and glared at him with the look one would give to a misbehaving child - a sort of mix of pity and disgust.

"Young man," he said slowly and softly but firmly, "I'd suggest that you go to your room this evening, sit down, take your Bible and READ IT!!"

On my previous post HISTORY LESSONS, I complained about our ignorance of history.  While I still hold those same complaints, I need to soften them a bit.  When speaking of history teachers I was speaking in generalities.  There are many solid teachers who have a passion for the study of history and are eager to share that passion with their students.  One of these was Dr. John Hannah, my Church History prof at Dallas Seminary.  Dr. Hannah portrayed the historical actors with understanding and compassion, as Dr. Waltke did with biblical characters.

But many of those passionate teachers are confronted with apathetic students, who have already been conditioned to regard history as a bore.  The ignorance is not always the fault of their current teacher.

Perhaps ignorance of history might be to a certain extent explainable if not excusable.  The same could be said of ignorance of science (IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS).  But ignorance of the Bible is definitely not excusable for the follower of Christ.

I realize that ignorance of the Bible is mainly due to the fact that people don't bother to read it.  However, if I lay much of the blame for ignorance of history on history teachers, I suppose I should do the same for ignorance of the Scriptures.  For the greater share of my life I have taught the Bible - as a pastor, as a college professor, as a Sunday school teacher, as a counselor.  Have I been a contributor to the ignorance of many?  If so, in what way?  What have I and others done to discourage people from reading the Bible?

Some observations and questions we teachers need to ask ourselves:

• Do we come across as authorities and discourage people from thinking through biblical concepts on their own?
• Do we use the Bible as a loose collection of stories and sermon topics that are often ripped out of context?
• Do we bring out the great themes of the Bible and demonstrate its unity?
• Do we demonstrate the relevance of biblical principles to every area of life?
• Do we make an effort to teach our people how to study on their own, to observe, interpret and apply?
• Do we moralize?  While much of the Scripture is concerned with ethics and ethical behavior, not all of it is.
• Do we ourselves have a passion for the Word that is contagious?

According to Haddon Robinson, my prof of Homiletics (preaching) at seminary, "It's a sin to bore people with the Word of God!"

Do we?  Do I?