Stoned-Campbell Disciple

The first act of divine love recorded is the act of creation. In love and by love the God of love created all that exists. But the first word of mercy in the Bible, before humanity utters a word, is God’s care for human need. That word of mercy is “it is not good for the human being to be alone” (The First Testament: A New Translation). God in love creates and God in mercy provides for human intimacy. We rightly read Genesis 2 about marriage but the human need for intimacy and companionship is not only filled in marriage. Humans do not thrive apart from intimacy.

But God’s act of mercy is subverted by our modern western culture in powerful ways. The ancient book called Sirach (regarded as holy at Qumran, in the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, regarded as part of the Apocrypha by Protestants but part the King James Version), addresses the subject of friendship repeatedly. Intimate friends are a treasure.

“Faithful friends are a sturdy shelter:
whoever finds one has found a treasure.
Faithful friends are beyond price;
no amount can balance their worth.

Faithful friends are life-saving medicine;
and those who fear the Lord will find them.
Those who fear the Lord direct their
friendship aright,
for as they are, so are their neighbors also”
(Sirach 6.14-17; see also 9.10-16; 19.13-17; 22.19-26; 27.16-21; 37.1-6)

But as noted our culture is corrosive to genuine intimacy. I want to suggest two interrelated forces that war against God’s first mercy: Western individualism and our economic definitions of life.

In America capitalism is not simply a theory of economics but a “grand narrative” or “master narrative” for living. It shapes our view of the world, how we see ourselves, and most importantly what think matters and counts as success. In this “grand narrative” Friendship and intimacy are less important because they have no “cash value.”

The capitalist grand narrative subtly teaches us to conceive of persons and relationships as products rather than a persons. We “monetize” the divine image bearer. Love, intimacy, friendships become a sales transaction. We “sell ourselves” in ourselves in ways that we hope others will “invest” in us.

But the grand narrative does not stop there, because it is aggressively materialistic, we come to believe that things satisfy our longings more than people. This consumerism is lethal for relationships because the last thing the economic grand narrative wants us to believe is that we can be content … with anything!

Consumerism both fosters and is built upon discontent. Nothing lasts and that includes relationships. If a product wears down, we do not repair it, we throw it away. If a relationship is not serving “me” then we throw it away as easily as the product. The “master narrative” in fact teaches us to EXPECT the relationships to end. And this expectation in turn trains us to think working through/repairing is not “worth it.”

The values of friendship, of intimacy, are directly antithetical to rugged individualism and the economic grand narrative we often hold so dear. Intimacy whether in a good friendship or marriage is requires people who live a grand narrative that is fundamentally just, people who are generous in spirit, people who are loyal, people who are faithful, people who are trustworthy and people who make themselves available to others.

Just reflecting

“Now he [Jesus] was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath. And just then there appeared a woman with a spirit that had crippled her for eighteen years. She was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight. When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said, ‘Woman, you are set free from your ailment.” When he laid his hands on her, immediately she stood up straight and began praising God. 

But the leader of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had cured on the Sabbath, kept saying to the crowd, “There are six days on which work ought to be done; come on those days and be cured and not on the Sabbath day.” But the Lord answered him and said, “You hypocrites! Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it to water? And ought not this woman, a daughter of Abraham whom Satan bound for eighteen long years, be set free from this bondage on the Sabbath day?” When he said this, all his opponents were put to shame, and the entire crowd was rejoicing at all the wonderful things being done by him.” (Luke 13.10-17, NRSV).

Luke’s Gospel is so Jewish that modern biblical scholars tend to believe that Luke was himself Jewish (not a Gentile as so often claimed in the past). Salvation is typically understood in terms of the Sabbath (Year of Jubilee which is itself part of the Sabbath). The story we encounter in Luke 13 is a window on Jesus of Nazareth and of how Luke tells the story of the Jewish Messiah. Luke paints in very Jewish hues. Let me share just a few of examples of just how deeply Luke’s story is enmeshed with the soil of the Hebrew Bible especially its translation the Septuagint (LXX).

This week I have been wrestling with Luke 13.10-17 the “loosening” or setting free of the woman that stoops. Let me share just a few connections with the Hebrew Bible/LXX …

1) Luke begins the story by explicitly situating Rabbi Jesus as gathered with the saints in the synagogue on the sabbath. Sabbath is mentioned five times within this story. Jewish readers already have quite a bit of information about sabbath in their mind and Luke taps into that.

2) The story illustrates Luke’s willingness to use women to set the agenda for the Good News going all the way back to Mary’s Song in 1.46-55. In this story, the bent woman is exalted and the exalted religious leader is brought low. This daughter of Abraham (the promises made to ancestors mentioned by Mary, 1.55) is liberated/loosed/set free.

3) In the case of the woman with the hemorrhage in 8.43ff she was seeking Jesus. In this case the woman is passive, is not seeking healing, and is set free on the Sabbath day.

4) Luke does not say “Jesus” called the exalted religious leader a hypocrite. Luke says “the LORD” did. This is the voice of the narrator identifying a character in the story as more than those present recognized.

5) Luke is consciously connecting this with the purpose of the Sabbath and the year of Jubilee is plain. This woman is “crippled” in v. 11 but Jesus says she has been set free from “bondage” (i.e. slavery) in v.16. The Sabbath celebrates the setting free the Children of Abraham (she is a “daughter of Abraham”) in Deuteronomy 5.12-15. Jesus as “Lord” has enacted the “Sabbath” for this woman.

6) Note the extending of the hand/arm language. “Woman, you are set free …” (Jesus uses a passive) … When he laid his hands on her …” (v.13). Deuteronomy 5.15 reads “remember you were bond slaves in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God delivered you with a mighty HAND and OUTSTRETCHED ARM …(LXX)” Jesus touching this woman is not simply an act of compassion (though it is that)! The “Lord” has delivered her on the Sabbath!

7) The exalted religious leader is humiliated by Jesus because he does not know his Bible. Jesus appeals directly to the Sabbath itself where compassion is extended to all of God’s creation including animals. It is NOT a violation of the Sabbath to care for, feed, and love your animals on the Sabbath. The Rabbis call it Tza’ar Ba’alei Chayim. Animals have the same basic rights as humans in the Torah but people often still think of them as “lesser.” But the religious leader believes that it is perfectly legal to “loose” or “set free” an ox (same word that is used in v. 16 in reference to the woman) ON THE SABBATH but this daughter/child of Abraham cannot have the same grace as the animal. Thus “the LORD” calls him a HYPOCRITE! There is no better day for a daughter of Abraham to be set free from bondage than the day that celebrates setting the slaves free!

How often do we observe the the letter of the law but have no clue what it actually means? When actual meaning shows up we react like the religious leader did to “the Lord.”

8) There are many more connections but the final one I will draw out is from Luke’s summary of the story in v.17. Luke’s vocabulary is drenched in the LXX! He writes the “crowd was celebrating at all the marvelous things/great and awesome things that he was doing.”

Luke uses the word endoxois here. This is normally an adjective but is used only here in the whole NT as a noun. This word in the LXX describes GOD’S mighty deeds of salvation and liberation that are remembered on the Sabbath. For example in Deuteronomy 10.21 we read, and note the connection to “praise” as the woman did in v.13, “HE [God] is your praise; he is your God, who has done for you these MARVELOUS THINGS that your eyes witnessed.” Or in Exodus 34.10 when God renews the covenant with Israel after the adultery with the bell hop on the honeymoon by Israel, “I [God] now make a covenant. In front of all your people, I will perform MARVELS/WONDERS/GREAT DEEDS, such as have never been performed in all the earth or in any nation …”

The Exodus text is significant too because it promises God’s “marvels” as a prelude to REST (ahhhhhh a Sabbath theme!) . Luke tells us the “Lord” gave “rest” to a “daughter of Abraham” by setting her “loose” or “free” on the Sabbath day.

Jesus did not just live the Sabbath he WAS the Sabbath freeing the children of Abraham from slavery. Those tasked with teaching doctrine or truth to God’s People failed and were “brought low,” as Mary promised, because they did not understand the very Bible they claimed to have mastered.

There is a LOT going on in this story of liberation in Luke 13. Jesus, like God in the Hebrew Bible, saw the misery of captives (like Exodus 1 and 2) and he acted without her consent to do what God will do … Act in Mercy. The Sabbath Day is the celebration of Mercy on all God has made … animals and even daughters of Abraham!

Be Blessed

See Also

Luke, ‘the Women,’ & New Creation

Aroma of Incense: Shadow of the Temple in Luke’s Jewish Story of Jesus and the Way

The Good Samaritan and ‘The Old Testament’

Luke the Priest? Was Luke Gentile or Jewish?

“It is not expedient for Christians, white or black, to participate in radical efforts to uproot deep-seated social customs that are not directly inconsistent with living the Christian life.” (L. M. Graves, seems to sum up the general position of most white preachers in 1955 and seems to be retained in 2026).

The Year is 1955. To my knowledge the first time any lectureship among “us” addressed the issue of race was the ACC Lectures in 1955 note quite a year after the unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Brown vs Board of Education May 17, 1954. At the ACC Lectures there was a panel “Discussion of Race Relations” consisting of four men, each delivered a very short speech. They were:

• J. Roy Willingham, Jr., “What Should the Christian’s Atttidue Be Toward Race Relations?”
• Leon Locke, “The Congregational Attitude Toward Race Relationships
• J. W. Treat, “What Does the Bible Teach About Race Relationship?”
• L. M. Graves, “Without Respect of Persons, The Negro and Race Relationships.“

The universal consent among the speakers was that “the Negro” is created in the image of God, that Christians should not discriminate, but equality before God is not social equality in relationships. One seems to dissent from this and I will get there in a moment. All suggest that the guide in race relationships is the “Golden Rule.”

It begs the question, as the presentations go, if segregation is how “we” (white people) would like to be treated.

Willingham, addressing individual relationship, says there is no basis for racial supremacy. He is sad that “modernists and infidels” are seen defending “these Christian principles” while Bible believers do not. Willingham’s is the strongest of the speeches. But he, like the rest, thinks “Christianity is rather an evolutionary force in society” that does not directly impact society. Therefore “we should not be overzealous in attempting to produce changes in social and political structure.” We are to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.

This begs the question, are the Psalms, the Prophets, Ephesians, the Epistle of James and Revelation silent on the matters of justice in the public sphere? They in fact address the matter as much as any subject.

Leon Locke spoke briefly on how congregations should view race relationships. He states that the purpose of the church is “preaching the gospel. Its purpose is not the accomplishment of social or political reforms.” Noting that Paul did not lead a campaign to oppose slavery in the Roman Empire he argued we do not need to that that either. The church does not rock the boat … I quote him at length on the matter of integrated churches:

“Most of us were born into a society that not only recognizes some racial segregation, but in some instances has required it by civil law … Where it is true [segregation] each congregation should strive to maintain a maximum influence by avoiding any social situation that would hinder its work … Segregation of races on a voluntary basis where each recognizes and respects the problems of the other, has much to commend it in the Lord’s work … But a mingling of different races in one congregation would jeopardize the influence of the church with a large segment of those it needs to reach with the truth, segregation on this voluntary basis would be required by the simple rule of expediency … Where segregation is the social order of the day, let us not allow the church to become a part of organized agitation for reform.”

This amounts to an apology for the status quo that existed (and still exists) in Churches of Christ across the South. It is a truism that the old saw “we are to obey God rather than man” never seems to have any bearing on the issue of justice and righteousness in race relations.

J. W. Treat says a word about what the Bible says about race relationships. He does declare certain interpretations commonly held about the curse of Ham to be untrue. Humanity is, he says, of “one blood.” He then quotes a series of passages that emphasize the universality of the gospel message for “all nations.” The Golden Rule is how we approach race relationships.

L. M. Graves addresses the idea of “The Negro and Race Relationships.” He speaks of how Memphis is 35% black. He offers a series of statistics that seem to be offered to support the notion that blacks are “morally and socially immature as a race.” He admits that discrimination has existed in all areas of life. The Nashville Christian Institute and Southwestern Christian College “are making valiant efforts within their limited means” to correct these shortcomings of the black race. Then Graves addresses the issue of segregation. Segregation and discrimination are not the same he claims. “Improvement of man’s attitude toward his fellow man comes through acceptance and practice of Christianity and not through judicial pronouncements or following social theories … Integration may come in the future” he says but it is “through a process of evolution.” “It is not expedient for Christians, white or black, to participate in radical efforts to uproot deep-seated social customs that are not directly inconsistent with living the Christian life.”

There you have the highlights from the first panel of discussion on Race Relations in the Churches of Christ on a major college campus, the 1955 Abilene Christian College Lectures. I am sometimes astounded by what we said, and continue to say.

Related Articles

Racial Concerns in Churches of Christ, Trends since King, 1950-2000

Embracing Differences for the Sake of Unity: Some Theological Reflections

You Sound like a Racist An Autobiographical Moment

The last several days I have received inquiries seeking input and advice on situations involving divorce. Things pertaining to divorce is one of the most common questions I get via email/messenger (the others being material on the role of women but rarely on the Hebrew Bible or racial justice for some reason).

From a pastoral perspective, I have never understood how marriage, divorce or remarriage have become such hot button topics. We are dealing with lives, divine image bearers, not mere ideas, not some “doctrine.” Jesus, that great student of the Hebrew Bible, chastised some zealots for not knowing what “I desire mercy not sacrifice” means. He also challenged those same zealots to “go learn” what “I desire mercy not sacrifice” means. The ability to quote scripture is not an indication that one grasps scripture.

Of course Jesus was quoting from the Prophet Hosea whose own marital life was characterized by painful adultery for years. Why didn’t Hosea just stone Gomer? I mean, after all, even today those who misunderstand the “Torah” use that as one of their caricatures of the Hebrew Bible. But instead, the entire book of Hosea, not just a text in chapter 6, is a living commentary on Mercy and Hesed. When Gomer was “loved by another,” Hosea was to extend LOVE. Yahweh did not “stone” the “guilty.” Perhaps slow reading and ruminating upon Hosea 11 should be done, until we get it.

“When Israel was a child, I loved him,
    and out of Egypt I called my son.
² But the more they were called,
    the more they went away from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals
    and they burned incense to images.
³ It was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
    taking them by the arms;
but they did not realize
    it was I who healed them.
⁴ I led them with cords of human kindness,
    with ties of love.
To them I was like one who lifts
    a little child to the cheek,
    and I bent down to feed them.

“Will they not return to Egypt
    and will not Assyria rule over them
    because they refuse to repent?
⁶ A sword will flash in their cities;
    it will devour their false prophets
    and put an end to their plans.
⁷ My people are determined to turn from me.
    Even though they call me God Most High,
    I will by no means exalt them.

“How can I give you up, Ephraim?
    How can I hand you over, Israel?
How can I treat you like Admah?
    How can I make you like Zeboyim?
My heart is changed within me;
    all my compassion is aroused.
⁹ I will not carry out my fierce anger,
    nor will I devastate Ephraim again.
For I am God, and not a man—
    the Holy One among you.
    I will not come against their cities.
¹⁰ They will follow the Lord;
    he will roar like a lion.
When he roars,
    his children will come trembling from the west.
¹¹ They will come from Egypt,
    trembling like sparrows,
    from Assyria, fluttering like doves.
I will settle them in their homes,”
    declares the Lord.”

Legalism is spiritual death, oh it has, in the words of Paul, the form of religion but no power. We coddle legalism in order to “play it safe.” But legalism is NOT safe! Legalism is not only unbiblical but it is antibiblical and flies completely in the face of Jesus.

I think legalism is one of the greatest hindrances to both our individual and communal walk with God. Legalism turns us into spiritual cowards devoid of love, grace and mercy. We become afraid and won’t even study our own Bible. Our position is mistaken for the Bible itself. We become “defenders” of OUR position rather than SEEKERS of God’s infinite wisdom and explores of his limitless truth. I lived with it. It keeps us from having any word of hope for the world. Nail it to the cross people. The Hebrew Bible was never nailed to the Cross but legalism ought to be.

So in the following situation legalism gone to seed. The question is about baptism and divorced people. I am not breaking any confidence here bc I literally do not know the folks in this conversation and I will only say share my perspective on the whole.
Why would we tell a person who has lived in the “world,” been a victim of sin in all its nastiness, that is NOW in a healthy fifteen year marriage with children, but has requested baptism that in order to be baptized he/she has to divorce the person they are married to?

Why would we do that?

This is insanity. I said so. I will say so again. This is why “we” are regarded as nothing but irrelevant nuts (that is blunt but that is exactly what we are thought of).

Jesus’s interaction with the poor 4x divorcee(!) in John 4, simply does not exist for some people. Jesus told her to go worship in Spirit and Truth. He did not say to her go unscramble your messed up eggs of her previous life. This woman became the first person to confess the Messiahship of Jesus (it was not Peter) and she became the first Gospel Preacher in history. Perhaps this is why so many ignore everything in John 4 except v.24.

I was told if this person was baptized and then refused to leave the “life of adultery” in which he/she lived (because the other partner did not have “scriptural divorce” when this person married him/her) then disfellowship would have to be practiced.

Now my friends this is again insanity. I see no place in Acts where Peter, Paul or Mary, stop to quiz anyone on their marital history prior to allowing them to be baptized.

I hate divorce beloved. I am a divorced person. I have received many unkind remarks in the past for being “divorced.” Most people who have been divorced hate divorce. I don’t wish divorce on anyone. Let’s do everything we can to help make marriages what they ought to be. But divorce happens. And in most cases it is pure hell. Again I doubt Hosea liked his married life.

But sometimes I wonder if the Body of Christ ever gets anything from the Head!? The Head majors in MERCY. Do we actually believe what we read in the Gospels? Sinners loved being with Jesus. I know we say this in Sunday School but do we actually believe the text when it says it point blank?

Legalism murdered Jesus!

Bible believing, sound doctrine, guardians of the faith killed Jesus and they did it by the book. It was not the sinners, the prostitutes, the drunks, or the folks at “Matthew’s house,” that killed Jesus.

As I said last night, I would baptize the person under consideration upon a confession of their faith in Jesus in a heartbeat. I would tell them to be dedicated in their marriage. I would tell them to be faithful and true. I would surround the couple with love and mercy and watch God perform miracles in that life.

That is just me. But I think that is what Jesus would do too.

Let’s be a church that acts towards other people – rich, poor, men, women, church goers and non-church goers – the way Jesus himself acted toward them.

Run from legalism. Run to Jesus.

See Also of Related Interest

Tears: God’s or Mine (Reflections on Jeremiah from the Pit of Divorce)

Shattered Dreams … Picking Up the Pieces

Theological Question Begging

The Boss? Song of Songs and Ephesians 5

Shabbat celebrates God’s siding with and liberating slaves (Deut 5.12-15). Numerous politicians have arisen claiming to be the “party of Lincoln” (some dare to invoke Martin Luther King Jr!) but whose values and knowledge of history are nothing but a repudiation of Lincoln (and never remotely connected to King).

Politicians are either liars or ignorant, possibly both. They give lip service support for the Confederacy, make claims of why the War happened, etc. All at fundamental odds with anything Abraham Lincoln remotely stood for. (Lincoln was hardly perfect but we do know where he stood on these matters!).

The creation of the Confederate States of America came with “founding documents.” The States that left the United States to create the CSA left an UNAPOLOGETIC rational for their actions. They even called what they were doing as “creating a great slave holding Confederacy.” People manufacture all kinds of unhistorical fake reasons while denying what these people actually stated clearly about themselves. It is hard to argue with what Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, etc stated as their own reasons. They enshrined their views in the slave holding Confederacy’s Constitution and laws.

Here is the State of Texas’s “Declaration of Secession from the Union of the United States” adopted on February 2, 1861. Please note this is a full four weeks before Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President of the United States on March 4, 1861.

The first paragraph (literally the first sentence) of this Declaration is stunningly clear. Note the explicit repudiation of the values of the Declaration of Independence in the very first sentence. Governor Abbot should be dared to read it on TV. Read it beloved. All the Confederate flags and all the Confederate “monuments” are tied to these words. Please Read it.

“In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

“For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

“By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a ‘higher law’ than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

“They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition …

“In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

“We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

“That in this free government ALL WHITE MEN ARE AND OF RIGHT OUGHT TO BE ENTITLED TO EQUAL CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

“By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.”

– Adopted in Convention on February 2, 1861

There are few things that are PLAINER than these words … Some will absolutely refuse to read. Some will read and accuse me of buying into political correctness when I had nothing to do with writing these words.

“Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.” (Deuteronomy 5.15).

Related Relevant Posts

The Confederate Flag & the Nation for Which it Stands

Understanding the Times: Historical & Theological Thoughts on the Civil War and our Crises Today

Memorial Day(s): American Martyrs for Freedom, A Meditation

Forever Free: Emancipation & Reconstruction (Eric Foner): A Review

Today would have been John Perkins ninety-sixth birthday.

JOHN PERKINS (June 16, 1930-March 13, 2026). I learned a short while ago that one of my heroes, John M. Perkins entered his reward to await the resurrection of the righteous. I first came to know Brother Perkins while in Mississippi in the 1990s. I have, I think, read all of his books. Pastor, lived passionately for the Lord, a living monument to racial reconciliation.

John was all about love. A story from 1970 a van load of young people from his church were stopped by the police in Rankin County. Perkins went to get them. The whole thing was a set up for the state police were waiting for Perkins. He would be severely beaten by the police and nearly died. Later his son Spencer wanted to know if Malcolm X was in fact correct and we should not love “white people.” (This came from reading the Parable of the Good Samaritan btw). And Perkins, whose body would physically have the marks of that night in 1970, said we have to love white people the most. It was not a popular answer with Spencer at the time (Spencer himself, before he died years ago, would become a vocal advocate of racial justice and reconciliation). John Perkins was about love. Justice is what love looks like in the public sphere.

I wrote the following for his birthday a few years ago, I share it again in memory of his gracious ministry of love.

“John M. Perkins was born in New Hebron, MS on June 16, 1930. His father abandoned the family, and he was raised in poverty by sharecropping grandparents. At 17, his brother Clyde, a United States veteran of the European theater of World War II, was murdered by the police while waiting in line to go to a movie (this was 1947).

John’s family feared he may suffer a similar fate. So he went to California, where he was drafted into the army. While in the Army he met his wife, Vera. In 1957, John’s son, Spencer, led him to faith in Jesus and he would go on to become a great apostle of love.

In 1960, John felt he owed a debt to Mississippi and moved his family back “home” and located in Mendenhall (an impoverished town southeast of Jackson). Never having had the opportunity for education himself but a firm believer in education, he started a “Head Start” program to help ensure the poor (mostly African Americans) had the resources to lay a foundation for learning and opportunity. In 1965 his family lead the way in integrating the local high school (Spencer was the first and only person of color in 1965). He led voter registration drives in Simpson County, led boycotts of all white businesses over their racist discriminatory practices, he led a protest march in 1969.

All the while there was considerable push back. In 1969, he was arrested by the Brandon Police and tortured and nearly beaten to death. Spencer, who had led John to faith, testified to how this incident was one of the greatest crises of faith he ever had. He confessed the rage that swelled inside of him to witness not only the brutalization of his father, but the humiliation of his father. He found this intolerable. He told his father perhaps it was time to agree with Malcolm X and black people simply could not be Christians. But John responded that he must love white people “especially.” John preached that we must love everyone, especially white people.

So, John began Voice of Calvary Ministries with the goals of helping the poor and directly addressing racial injustice and reconciliation in a focused manner. By the 1970s his ministry focused around the “Three R’s.”

Relocation

Redistribution

Reconciliation

All of these boil down to Christ-centered love. In fact, John argues repeatedly that “love is the greatest and final battle.” He refused, and still refuses, to give up on the vision of the kingdom of God as a purposefully multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-color place located in space and time in the hear and the now where God’s will is done on Earth as in heaven.

John led Thomas Tarrant, Grand Wizard of the KKK, to biblical Christianity. Then they coauthored a wonderful book called “He’s My Brother: Former Racial Foes Offer Strategy for Reconciliation.” John has written numerous books that have been crucial in my learning and training in understanding just what love really is.

– Let Justice Roll

– Beyond Charity: The Call to Christian Community Development

– One Blood: Parting Words to the Church on Race

– He’s My Brother

– Dream With Me: Race, Love and the Struggle we Must Win:

– One Blood: Parting Words to the Church on Race

– Go and Do: Nine Axioms on Peacemaking and Transformation from the Life of John Perkins

Stephen Berk wrote a full biography of Perkins in 1997 called,

A Time to Heal: John Perkins, Community Development and Racial Reconciliation.

In the 1990s, John started and published a magazine called “Urban Family,” focusing on the unique needs of the poor, especially those in the cities of America. I read it in Grenada, MS regularly.

I met John Perkins while preaching in Grenada in 1995 when I became involved in Mission Mississippi, an interdenominational effort to get white Christians and black ones to come together, to learn from one another, to repent if need be (and there is need!). And to win that greatest and final battle, the battle of love.

John Perkins may not be as famous as Martin Luther King Jr or Cornel West or James Baldwin. But about 15 years ago someone asked me “what do you think Jesus was like?” I thought for a few minutes and I said, “I think John Perkins is what Jesus is like.”

I hope you will get one or several of his books and read them. He is a hero of the kingdom of God. Happy 92nd birthday John Perkins. May we, your white brothers and sisters, develop your capacity to love and to know love is action.

The American church needs to listen to men like John Perkins. I will say it again, the American church needs to listen to men like John Perkins. He (or She) that has an ear …

I cannot recommend enough getting, today, some books by Perkins and diving in. Dream with Me is a good starting point

SEE ALSO

Dr. John M. Perkins Bible Study with Bryan Stevenson (YouTube video)

Spencer Perkins and the “Prolife Credibility Gap”

Can I Do Anything about Racial Reconciliation? Yes!

James Baldwin: They Don’t Want to Hear the Truth

I am of the persuasion that God’s people must embrace the entire Story of God. Individual passages have to be read within their contexts (both historical and literary) and in light of the beginning and the end.

Sometimes I find brothers and sisters that want to discount part of the Story. They will (and we have all done this) even embrace a position that conflicts, even outright contradicts, with the Story. I find this to be the case when it comes to the matter of women. What do we do with the myriads of women who are not silent, who are not hidden, who are leaders in every sense of the word, who are teachers of God’s people, whose voices have been preserved in Scripture by the Holy Spirit and exercise authority over the entire people of God every time one is brave enough to read their words or examples.

One way of handling them is to get rid of women leaders in the Bible. This is what was done in a discussion I recently had. Just declare these women are great examples of “usurping authority!”

I was stunned by this generalization made broadly but Miriam was the immediate referent. My reply to this brother’s interesting and amazing comment.

“Are you sure that is how you want to characterize Miriam?”

I have read some interesting things from the old traditional perspective, but this one is among the best.

“You state: “I would think that Miriam better fits the poster as an example of usurping of authority, than that of a good example of leadership.” Then you state: “Numbers 12 would seem to be an indictment on her, to the extreme.”

“See brother you say you are not sexist but these claims are not only factually wrong, but both are sexist to the core because how you frame the issue. Let’s start with Numbers 12. You conveniently forget – or simply have not read – that Numbers 12 is an indictment on AARON and Miriam, that is on both a man and a woman. It is not a rebuke of a woman because a woman stepped out of her “assigned role.”

“Miriam is not swatted because she is female (this is where your sexism is blatant!). Both Aaron and Miriam were out of line. But the text does not say that God had not called both Aaron and Miriam to leadership. The issue in Numbers 12 has nothing to do with women “usurping authority” over a male. The issue is, pure and simple, the leadership of Moses. Aaron and Miriam are leaders among God’s people and both exercise authority. Why claim this text is about women when it is no more about Miriam than it is about Aaron?

“But brother, it is a fact the Holy Spirit PRAISES Miriam, very differently than you. Note what the inspired prophet asserted about Miriam, along with Moses and Aaron. “I brought you up out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery, I sent you Moses to lead you, also Aaron and MIRIAM” (Micah 6.3).

“God SENT Miriam to lead Israel! Stated point blank ****. God did not send Miriam alone, nor for the record God did not send Moses alone either. God sent Moses to lead. God sent Aaron to lead. God sent Miriam to lead.

“Further you are wrong on Exodus 15. Miriam does lead the women, but the women are addressing the whole congregation of Israel which is in fact in worship. She SUMMONS (imperative) the assembly to “Sing to Yahweh” (15.21). The “them” in v.21 is a MASCULINE (emphasis, not shouting) pronoun Miriam is not singing and leading only the ladies, she is leading the MEN. Just as the Spirit testifies in Micah 6.”

Miriam, my friends, cannot simply be cast aside as a “usurper.” She saved Moses himself as a child. She was a powerful leader among God’s people. She is part of the Story along with Deborah, Huldah, the nameless women in the Psalms who proclaim God’s message, Anna, Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Euodia, Syntyche and a host of others. Her “New Testament” counterpart is known to most as “Mary” the Mother of Jesus … a pretty important person.

Blessings and Shalom

Related Articles

A Biblical Register of Roles God Has Called Women

Huldah Who? The Forgotten Ministry of a Lady Prophet

Deborah, The Prophet Like Moses

These are the Day of Rebekah …

Faithful Men/Males or Faithful Persons? What Did Paul Say in 2 Timothy 2.2?

Thirty years ago, I had moved to Grenada, Mississippi to be closer to Memphis for graduate school. Grenada was a formative period in my life for many reasons (I have mentioned them before). It was in Grenada that one of my fundamental categories for understanding the People of God began to take shape. My understanding of God’s People – what we call “church” at times – is rooted first in the Hebrew Bible and second in the theme of “land” in the Bible.

That year, 1995, I read Walter Brueggemann’s book of that title, “The Land.” Hard to believe that could be 30 years ago. I want to quote a paragraph from page 7. Perhaps until reading this, I had not stopped to understand a fundamental biblical category of what it means to be God’s People and it speaks loudly to us in our American situation.

“They are the people of sojourn. ‘Sojourner’ is a technical word usually described as ‘resident alien.’ It means to be in a place, perhaps for an extended period of time, to live there and take some roots, but always to be an outsider, never belonging, always without rights, title, or voice in decisions that matter. Such a one is on turf, having nothing sure but trusting in words spoken that will lead to a place. The theme of ‘resident alien’ is not remote from contemporary experience. People in our time know what it means to live waiting always for the notice of transfer, or for notice of ‘urban redevelopment,’ or for any of the irresistible and unidentified forces of urban life devoted to displacement.”

That was first written in 1977. I read it almost 20 years later in 1995. And today 30 years later is, to my ears, jolting. This imagery showed up in Kingdom Come; A Gathered People and even in Embracing Creation.

God’s People, the real God’s people, are in a place, take some roots, always an outsider, never belonging, devoid of power. The stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (i.e. ISRAEL!) are images of God’s people themselves.

Even when Israel enters the gift of the Land, they will always be tenants living by grace/hesed. The land is NOT Israel’s “property.” It is not actually MY land. Land granted status in the ancient world, not a bank account. To have Land was to be important, wealthy, powerful. God’s People were and are NONE of those things.

“The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and strangers” (Leviticus 25.23).

Israel lives as ALIENS even within the promised Land. They dwell by grace/hesed in that which is not theirs.

They can use the Land.
They can tend the Land.
They cannot own the Land in the final analysis.

Leviticus 25 and other texts make this clear. The Land is GOD’S. Every year, God’s People come before the Lord and confess “My father was a lost/perishing refugee (אֹבֵ֣ד (‘obed) and you gave ...” (Deuteronomy 26.5-9). To state my “father” was such and such is to confess that that is what I currently AM. Deuteronomy 26 is a confession of identity.

It is not the powerful who will inherit the Land but the poor and the meek (cf. Psalm 37). Throughout the Bible, in the Torah, in the Deuteronomistic histories (Samuel-Kings), in the Prophets, in the Psalms those who are God’s People are defined by the status of Refugee, Alien, Sojourner wherever they find themselves: in Egypt, in Babylon, in the post-Exilic Persian province of Judea. This is just as true in the writings we call the New Testament as the Hebrew Bible (First Peter is essential here). “God has chosen the weak …” (1 Cor 1.27).

We sometimes hear it said before the “collection” on Sunday’s what we have is not really ours. We make this pious statement to encourage generous giving. But sometimes I wonder if we believe those words on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, etc. Do we believe them when dealing with other “aliens”?

The fundamental disposition of God’s People though is just that – IT AIN’T OURS. We did not earn it. We did not get it. We did not work for it. It isn’t my food. It is not my wine. It is not my land I till. We are graced tenants or we are starving Aramite Refugees. In fact Yahweh tells us to “never forget” it.

The “marks of the church” is not a cappella singing. It is not the easily argued about things I grew up on. The fundamental identity, the mark, of God’s People is that we are Aliens, Refugees, Sojourners … it is only then that we come to realize that every breath we take, every move we make, every second we exist as the Graced People of Yahweh who gives us literally everything.

A Shabbat thought

Related Posts

My Father Was What Kind of Wandering ?

Knowing the Heart of the Stranger: The Old Testament and Loving our Neighbor

(I actually wrote this in 2017 but posting it on my blog just now. Previously I had this on Facebook).

May 11, 2017. Everett Ferguson, The Rule of Faith.

The Rule of Faith was (and is) important in the second and third centuries of the Christian Church. In a period when the Scriptures received from Judaism were pretty much accepted though there was no exact agreement (Protestant claims notwithstanding) on the exact boundaries of the canon and the writings for the Apostles were not all recognized uniformly (the NT canon was not settled), the Rule of Faith functioned as the canon. In fact it was sometimes even called the canon.

Everett Fergson has written a timely and succinct overview of what the Rule is and the history of scholarship on it. His book was published by Cascade in the Cascade Companions series. “The Rule of Faith: A Guide” (2015). The book is small being a mere 104 pages.

The Rule of Faith is divided up into six small chapters:

1) Statements of the Rule/Canon of Truth

2) Notes on Terminology and Other Pertinent Statements

3) Interpretation of the Rule of Faith

4) Studies of the Rule of Faith

5) Functions of the Rule of Faith

6) Relevance for Today of the Rule of Faith

Ferguson reproduces numerous lengthy quotations of the Rule from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, etc to illustrate its content. These quotations in chapter one form the basis of discussion in the rest of the book.

In chapter 2 he notes that the Rule is identified most frequently as the “rule of faith” or “regula fidei” (in Latin). Other terms were uses like “canon of truth,” “canon” “canon of faith,” etc.

Chapter 3 is probably the most important. The Rule defines the content of the Christian faith. Ferguson notes that the Rule seems to follow the “narrative” outline noted by C. H. Dodd on the Apostolic kerygma. A brief outline may be in order.

– the Word as the one thru whom God the Father created all things,

– has become incarnate thru the virgin birth in order to restore humanity to communion with God,

– his suffering under Pontius Pilate

– his resurrection in the flesh

– his bodily ascension to the Father,

– his coming again for the general resurrection/salvation of the flesh and judgment, bringing eternal punishment to the ungodly and eternal life to the faithful (see p.38)

In other examples of the Rule it narrates creation, to prophets, to the gospel in Christ, the giving of the Spirit to resurrection of the flesh in the eschaton. The Rule is a “narrative” that reflects the preaching of the church.

In Chapter 4, Ferguson provides an overview of the history of scholarship on the Rule beginning from the mid 19th century to the early 2000’s. Here the key issues seem to be the relation of the Rule/Canon to baptismal formulas, liturgy and the emerging canon of NT scripture. As Ferguson is cautious to point out the Rule is not the same thing as Scripture but he stresses repeatedly that it is “related” to Scripture. Scripture is never defined by Ferguson but he notes that Four Gospels were a staple by the time of Irenaeus and the epistles function as much the same. Irenaeus and Origen are seemingly key figures but so is the Rule of Faith.

Chapter 5 relates the function of the Rule. It describes “what” was preached and believed. The Rule was the base from which arguments against heresy and apologetics arose. Things contrary to the Rule were to be rejected. There was not some squashing of exploration but “authors allowed multiple interpretations provided they did not transgress the BOUNDARIES set by the rule of faith” (p. 78, my emphasis). So the Rule sort of marked the circumference of the faith. The Rule provides a guide for interpreting Scripture in light of the “point” or theme of the faith. The Rule keeps you grounded in the Story of God to put it in today’s lingo.

Finally chapter 6, Ferguson discusses the relevance of the ancient Rule for today. There are a number of statements in this short chapter that could serve Restorationists well. “[T]he ruld of faith as a summary of the basic facts of the gospel” is “deeply relevant” (p.85). The Rule functions as a protection of going off on tangents, extremes, and keeps even “non-creedal churches” rooted in the “core doctrine” of Christianity. So let me quote,

“Churches, especially non-creedal churches, but others as well, often need succinct statements of their basic doctrine–in addressing inquirers or visitors, in instructing new converts, or in clarifying their core beliefs to Christians who seek to identify with them. The rule of faith can serve these purposes well.”

Leaders should look to the Rule as to “what must be embraced, taught, and handed on” in order to be Christian. The Rule “keeps the focus on Christ and His story” (p. 86). Finally, Ferguson notes that the Rule keeps us on point while reading Scripture itself. “Scripture is not ‘flat’; not all of it is of equal importance …” (p.88). The call to remember the narrative of faith God is the Creator, He has pursued redemption thru Israel and sent the Word to become completely human in order to completely same “body and soul” of humanity, Jesus died and was raised in the flesh, God gave the Spirit and will send the Son to judge the living and the dead.

This little book could be a very important one for those in Evangelical and Restoration traditions. It has important implications on what is necessary for unity and allows for diversity that does not contradict the Rule (Ferguson explicitly discusses this). The Rule forces us to major in the majors as the saying goes while granting latitude in areas that the Rule does not legislate.

Finally, the little book matters because all of us today are a product of the second century church every bit as much as the first century church. The Rule of Faith was the guide for ultimately deciding the contents of that NT canon itself in its full extent. This is an interesting conundrum for traditional pattern theology. And in integrity it needs to be wrestled with. The Old Testament canon (a term that was coined by Melito of Sardis around 180 in his sermon on Easter/Passover) was never settled until the Protestant reformation (Ferguson for his part acknowledges this) and the NT would not be for quite some time. But there was still agreed upon Scripture and the Rule was both the summary content and the interpretive guide for Scripture that focused supremely on Jesus the Messiah.

This is definitely worth reading and wrestling with. Churches of Christ as one of those “non-creedal” churches could certainly profit from a greater knowledge of the Rule. We certainly have split the Body of the Lord asunder over things that clearly are not part of the Rule of Faith.

Perhaps the biggest value of the Rule is it sort of forces us to “know our story.” The issue of the moment is, likely, not the core of Christianity … except Macionism and Gnosticism. And in light of Scripture itself this seems to be a fairly big deal.

LED IN WORSHIP BY JESUS THE PRIEST: WHAT ASSEMBLY IS ABOUT IN HEBREWS (Sort of an Outline of Assembly Theology in Hebrews)

Near the end, but not quite the end, of his sermon, the Sermonator shares that famous (or infamous to some) line about “not forsaking the assembly.” 

One of the greatest problems in Bible reading is reading in “bits” and “pieces.” Reading piecemeal.  Reading Hebrews in bits is literally a recipe for disaster. We need to read Hebrews beginning to end over and over.  Attend to what is said (and what is NOT said).  Note the foundational Exodus narrative that flows through. And recognize that the Sermonator states freely that what he says can be “hard to understand/explain” (5.11). That was true then but even more two thousand years later when most of us know virtually nothing of the Hebrew Bible, Jewish apocalyptic, and the logic of sacrifice.

But the rational for not neglecting is the ENTIRE sermon we call “Hebrews.” The fundamental arc begins in 2.11-12 and culminates in chapter 12.18ff. 

The Sermonator of Hebrews is a brilliant preacher. He is infused with the Jewish world of the Hebrew Bible and Jewish apocalyptic theology. The “Exodus” is like a neon light blazing in the background. And he places a premium upon the Gathering (assembly) just as Deuteronomy and the Psalter (texts that are important in Hebrews).  We have heard sermons on “not forsaking the assembly” (10.25) as some sort of “legalism” more than we care to admit. But even legalism does not begin to capture the explosive claim the Sermonator makes. 

Near the beginning of the homily, the Sermonator declares that the bodily, in the flesh, resurrected Jesus has brothers and sisters and stands in the “midst of the ekklesia I will praise You” (2.11f).  Jesus is depicted as preaching and praising, that is leading worship through the Psalms, in the “congregation” (church/ekklesia).  Here is an anchor point for the very people hearing the Sermon itself. 

Then the Sermonator sort of takes us back by explaining how this all happened. Jesus suffered through obedience but was “perfected”  through the resurrection of his body. His resurrected body passes through the heavens and entered into the heavenly sanctuary of God (4.14; 9.12).

God, not Jesus, declared that the Jewish man from Nazareth would be High Priest (4.14-5.10).  God declares him to be the Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek. The Sermonator tells us he not only does not but cannot serve as a priest on earth for two basic reasons. There are already priests in the temple (8.4) and he is of the tribe of Judah not Levi (7.14).  But the bodily resurrected Jesus is not on earth but now in the heavenly sanctuary, the Holy Place. Every Jew knew that the “Holy Place” in the Jerusalem temple was the “place” where Heaven and Earth interlock. Heavenly sanctuary and earthly sanctuary are mirrors of one another.

But in the Holy Place, in God’s heavenly temple, Jesus the King-Priest leads worship! He is the “liturgist” (worship leader/minister) in God’s own Presence (8.1). There he mediates the kainos (renewed/new) covenant on behalf of the House of Israel and House of Judah (8.8-11).

In fact, what the bodily resurrected Jesus is doing in that sanctuary is presiding over a heavenly Yom Kippur. There he cleanses not only people but the sanctuary itself (9.23) He is there performing these liturgical/worship tasks now while we wait for him to appear in order to “save” us who wait for him (9.28). 

After the presentation of the once for all sacrifice, the presentation of his resurrected body, we have a long list of heroes present in God’s house. Those listening to the Sermon are part of a great history of faith. These heroes are awaiting to be perfected through the resurrection but their spirits are gathered (11.1-40; cf. 3.5-6 tells us that Moses is in the same house that the addresses of the sermon itself).

Suddenly then the Sermonator says, “You/yall have come” (perfect tense) to

1) Mt. Zion

2) Jerusalem

3) Angels

4) “ekklesia” of the first born

5) GOD

6) spirits of the righteous (refers back to the named and unnamed saints in 11.1-40)

7) AND TO JESUS (12.22-24)

Hebrews 12.18-29 brings us to the ekklesia that Jesus is standing in among his brothers and sisters in 2.11-12.  Why would one “forsake” being Gathered with Jesus’s brothers and sisters to #’s 1-7? 

When we gather, we are GATHERED by the Spirit and brought into the Holy Place where Jesus is NOW.  We are GATHERED (something done TO us) in the place of heavenly worship.  What happens in our gathering “mirrors” what is happening in God’s presence with Jesus himself preaching, singing, mediating giving glory with us and for us.  He proclaims the glorious name of God among us. 

The Sermonator believes that when we gather an Exodus 19 type event takes place every time. Except it is more. We have not come to Mt Sinai (12.18) with its blazing awesomeness (and the Sermonator believes it was in fact “awesome”). We have come to something that surpasses what even faithful Moses experienced. But Moses experiences is NOW, with us.  We, and all the spirits, are Gathered into that place that was shielded from human eyes, the throne room of God! Where Jesus and his blood has made the sanctuary clean.

The Sermonator knows we cannot “see” Jesus right now. That is because he is our resurrected in the body, human in the Holy Place (9.12, etc).  But we do come to JESUS in the Gathering, we come to angels, Moses, Abraham, Huldah, Deborah, the Maccabean martyrs, David, Sarah, and to the GOD of Israel himself through the glorious ministry of Jesus the Priest-King of Israel.

Those who “neglect” the gathering misunderstand what takes place. The Gathered encounter GOD! Here Jesus is present with us. Here we commune with God … while we wait for the “Day” of his appearing (when he comes from behind the veil to the Holy Place).  In the meantime, we “have come” to God in holy ekklesia. 

This is Assembly of God.

Of Related Interest

Hebrews, Jesus and the “Old Testament”

Resurrection & Creation: Hebrews 11 and 2 Maccabees

Hebrews & the Wilderness: The Exodus Story is Paradigmatic, Not in the ‘Old Testament’ but in the New

Hebrews: Common Assumptions; Uncommon Surprises