Francis Grimké - Pastor, Preacher, Activist (1850-1937)

There are some stories which are simply neglected in the history of America and the story of the Grimké family is certainly one of them. What began with a southern, white family of Charleston aristocrats flowered into a group of people dedicated to the abolition of slavery and civil rights in America. The Christian gospel shapes the story at many of its twists and turns. The story of the Grimkés is far beyond the scope of this paper but in honor of Black History month we will look at the life and teaching of Francis, one of the most famous sons of the family.

In doing so we will lay out an ever so brief look at the Grimké family and how two sisters boldly broke with their southern slaveholding traditions to become leading abolitionists. Furthermore we will look at how one of their relatives became a highly educated and influential pastor and civil rights leader in the early twentieth century.  Finally, we will look to this man for a few things we might learn as followers of Jesus for our lives today in the 21st century.

The Grimké Story

The Grimké family was of German origin but chose and adopted a French spelling for their name in order to have a better chance of success in the new world. The first Grimké in America, John Paul, was an influential silversmith who became a leader in Charleston SC in the 1700s and became a leading citizen and patriot in the revolutionary era.[1] His grandson, John Faucheraud Grimké, would have two daughters that would make a firm break with South Carolina’s slave holding past. John was an Oxford graduate, lawyer, judge, revolutionary and constitutionalist who was a man of immense political influence and leadership in post-war Charleston.[2] Two of his daughters, Sarah and Angelina would go on to shape the 19th century abolitionist movement as well as the early part of the move for women’s rights in our country.  They also would be involved in educating their nephews, Archibald and Francis, who their brother Henry fathered with a slave named Nancy Weston.[3]  Francis would become an imminent scholar pastor and shaper of the struggle for civil rights in the early twentieth century.

Francis Grimké

Born in October of 1850 and passed away in October of 1937, Francis Grimké lived through truly tumultuous times. His family was a unique intersection of black and white, slave and free in the American experience. He lived in pre-Civil War south, served in the confederacy, went north to be educated after emancipation and served as a pastor for some six decades in Washington DC. 

Education

Francis moved north to Massachusetts when his sisters learned about him and his siblings being fathered by their brother. His sisters made every effort to fund their education and make sure they were given opportunities to become leading men of their time. Francis graduated in 1870 as Valedictorian of Lincoln University, the first degree granting historically black university. His focus of his early studies was on the subject of medicine. This interest soon gave way to law which he spent two years studying at Howard University. His final shift in study came in 1874 when he went to study theology at Princeton Theological Seminary during the days of the erudite evangelical scholar Charles Hodge.[4] 

Pastoral Ministry

The influence of various flavors of Christian faith was a constant in the lives of the Grimké family and their work for abolition and equality flowed from biblical convictions.  Francis followed in this and became a Presbyterian minister after completing his seminary studies in 1878. He became pastor of 15th Presbyterian Church in Washington DC and was the pastor there for almost six decades.[5] Even though he is rightly remembered today as a civil rights activist he was first and always a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He was married to the forty-one year old Charlotte Forten, a woman thirteen years his senior. The two had one daughter who died as a baby. Francis was involved in public work for the uplifting of African American people but we must never forget that he consciously did so as a Christian pastor and his first work was always in and through the church.

There are several things we can learn from Grimké’s life and witness today and the following are but a few highlights that were an encouragement to me and which I feel are of value to our community.

Gospel and Cultural Engagement

Many times leaders can be about the gospel but not really address social issues and concerns of the day. There are other times when people can be about social concerns and use the church or the title “Reverend” as a mere position to pursue social activism. Grimke was a man who heartily embraced gospel ministry and through this conviction was active for issues of justice in the world.  Two things demonstrated this to me. First, he was not just a pastor in name but his work was gospel work. His sermons illustrate this clearly[6]. He was a gospel preaching man. His sermon “Christ’s Program for Saving the Word” is illustrative:

“1. To call attention specifically to Christ’s program for saving the world, for bringing about changes for the better in individuals and in communities –in the whole structure of society, in all human relationships.

a. It is by preaching the gospel—the gospel of the grace of God in Christ Jesus

b. It is by teaching—teaching not philosophy or science or any special department of human knowledge, but teaching what is written in the Scriptures, the Word of god, given by holy men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. It is making known the contents of the Bible that Jesus here links up with the work of saving the world, of bringing about changes for the better in all human relations and conditions.”[7]

His devotion to the transformation of society was never a gospel-less or gospel-light endeavor but rather grounded quite firmly in gospel convictions.  Yet he did indeed give himself, although at his own time and pace[8], to the affairs of the world.  Two things stand out in his legacy. First, his commitment to education and training is reflective in his service as a trustee for the prestigious Howard University. He worked hard to secure the right leadership for the institution that would avoid the parochialism, condescension and outright racism of prior administrations.[9] Second, he was part of the community, along with his brother Archibald, who helped found and give early shape the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The organization was a light of hope for unity and influence during times where there was much infighting between national black leaders.[10]

Ministry was not for Promoting Self

In our day where celebrities and obsessing with famous people is an American past time, this sort of mentality can sadly slip into pastoral ministry. Grimké was ever aware of the temptation for men to use the influence of church leadership for self-promotion. He would have nothing of it:

He never preached what he did not earnestly try to practice. For the hypocrite he had the greatest contempt. He had not use for the minister who selfishly advanced himself at the expense of the church, or who used the pulpit to advertise himself before the world.[11]

Furthermore, he had a steadiness of life and ministry that his routine was to go before the Lord and go over his sermon each day of the week. This practice was maintained even as he was brought into the spotlight and center of civil rights movement.[12] He remained focused to prepare to teach and lead his people in the work of God.

Elevation of Oppressed People and the Multiethnic Church

As a man of mixed racial background and a proponent of black equality he had strong convictions about how to elevate Americans of African descent. He was convinced that the gospel needed to shape the virtue and character of individuals, families and communities as well as work for institutional justice. The way up included being a godly people shaping godly families.[13] In addition to his exhortation of people in the African American community he also had no tolerance for the twisted racism of many white church people. Yes, he exhorted his people in virtue, but he also called out white Christians who twisted their biblical confession with racial hatred and hypocrisy. His discouragement was in how little the gospel seemed to affect white “Christians” own racial prejudice saying:

Race prejudice is not the monopoly of the infidel, of the atheist, of the man of the world. It is shared by so-called professing Christians[14]

He fought against Presbyterian unification of northern churches with the racist Presbyterians of the south[15] and assumed that the gospel ought to allow black and white to be together as the church in a community where they shared a common language.[16] His idea of equality and commonality in the gospel is a legacy we rejoice in at Jacob’s Well. The truth that God brings together people of various backgrounds together in the gospel is a great blessing to each of our lives. (Ephesians 2:14-16, Revelation 7:9-12)

Primary Mission of the Church

In closing, I learned greatly from Francis Grimké that we must never forget the primary mission of the church. In all our serving, loving our communities, working for justice, showing mercy we must never neglect, leave out or cease preaching the cross of Jesus Christ, the salvation of sinners and the truth of the Word of God. Grimké was so clear on this matter that I will give him our last word. This comes forth from a journal entry he wrote as a seminary student training for a life of ministry ahead:

I accept, and accept without reservation, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as God’s Word, sent to Adam’s sinful race and pointing out the only way by which it can be saved. Without the Holy Scriptures and what they reveal, there is no hope for humanity. To build on anything else is to build on the sand.

Amen, preach brother, preach!

Bibliography

Anyabwile, Thabiti M. The Faithful Preacher : Recapturing the Vision of Three Pioneering African-American Pastors. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2007.

Perry, Mark. Lift up Thy Voice : The Grimké Family's Journey from Slaveholders to Civil Rights Leaders. New York: Viking, 2001.

[1]Mark Perry, Lift up Thy Voice : The Grimké Family's Journey from Slaveholders to Civil Rights Leaders (New York: Viking, 2001), 17.

[2] More on John Grimké ibid., 17-20.

[3] Thabiti M. Anyabwile, The Faithful Preacher : Recapturing the Vision of Three Pioneering African-American Pastors (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2007), 113.

[4] Ibid., 114. Hodge is still discussed today in areas of systematic theology and theological method as his approach has been described as a science of induction with the revelation of God in Scripture as the main source of data. This has drawn both fans and ire over the years. His theology is available for free online and remains well-read today – check it out and enjoy http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology1.toc.html

[5] Ibid., 115.

[6] Ibid., 135-182. Three of Grimke’s sermons are reprinted for us in Anyabwile’s work.

[7] Ibid., 178.

[8] His role in the controversies between black leaders/camps led by W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington is highlighted in Perry, 322-325.

[9] Ibid., 325.

[10] Ibid., 332-336.

[11] Anyabwile, 117.

[12] Perry, 340.

[13] Anyabwile, 119.

[14] Ibid., 120.

[15] Perry, 324.

[16] Anyabwile, 120.

A text message that made Dad smile

I just got a text message from my daughter who turns 11 on Sept 27th. It brought a smile and a tear to the eye today.

Said Daughter: Daddy, is this appropriate for me? I saw on the biography section on ur shelf. It looks all right but I wanted to ask u

Said Daddy: Ooooo, I have not read that one but you have a thumbs up from me - you just have to share with Dada a bit as you read!

Said Daughter: Ok! YAY!!! :-)

Peter: Disciple, Apostle and Witness for Jesus Christ

Introduction

One of the most compelling and interesting figures in the New Testament is a man named Simon Peter. He is in full focus and featured quite often in the Gospel of Mark. There is a rich church tradition and history which holds that John Mark actually wrote down the accounts of Peter in his gospel. When we come to Mark’s gospel we not only read about Peter’s life with Jesus but perhaps we hear echoes of his own voice and eyewitness accounts.

In this essay I want to do a few ambitious things.  First, I want to lay out a brief sketch of Peter’s life and biography from the New Testament. Second I want to briefly look at how Peter is featured and focused upon in the Gospel of Mark. Finally, for contemporary reflection, I will provide a postscript to discuss the Roman Catholic papacy in relation to the claim that Peter was the first pope. In writing this essay it is my hope and prayer that we will see Peter the man not the superman or Saint with a capital S on his chest. My desire is that we see a real person with real faith in Jesus whose life was transformed by his Lord. Then we might understand how Peter, and the other early Christians, went on to powerfully transform our world through the gospel they proclaimed.

Peter in the New Testament

Peter is a complex character in history leaping to life from the pages of the New Testament. He was many things but here we will focus on just three as they are directly related to Jesus.[1]

Peter: Disciple of Jesus

The New Testament uses a particular word to name the followers of Jesus: disciples.  The English word is derived from the same root as “discipline” and it means one who is a committed follower.  The Greek term which is used for disciple is mathetes, which means one who learns from and follows a master.  It describes a pupil who is submitted as an apprentice to a teacher.[2] In the most basic sense Peter was a disciple of Jesus in this way. In another sense Peter was one of the twelve disciples, a group of men selected by Jesus to serve as his team in gospel ministry.

He was born in the province of Galilee in the city of Bethsaida (John 1:44) and apparently had a home in Capernaum during his adult life. He was born with the Jewish name Simeon or Simon (Acts 15:4, 2 Peter 1:1) and had a wife though we do not know much about her (Mark 1:30).  We do know that she accompanied her husband in his missionary travels at some point due to Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 9:30.

Peter was called to be a follower of Jesus along with his brother Andrew with this call variously recorded in the early chapters of the gospels of Mark and John. Apparently he was part of the crowd who had gone out to hear and respond to John the Baptizers call for repentance of sin and Jesus met him during this season. It was from Jesus that Simon was also given the named Peter which means “Rock” (John 1:40-42). Throughout his early ministry Jesus called several men to learn from him and be directly involved in leading his mission. Peter was a part of this crew when they became known as the twelve disciples (Mark 3:16).

Peter’s role among the twelve was a prominent one and the earliest writings about him list him as a leader of the twelve. He was called one of the pillars of the early church movement (Galatians 2:9) and was declared to be one of the first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus (1 Corinthians 15). These two traditions were widely in play before AD 50.[3] Along with James and John, Peter was involved in some of the most pivotal times in Jesus’ life and ministry.  He was present at the healing of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5), present as a witness of Jesus’ glorious transfiguration (Mark 9, Matthew 17) and was praying with Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before the crucifixion.

We see in the gospels Peter to be as passionate person and even rash at times. At Jesus’ final meal with his friends he strongly protests that his Lord would wash his feet like a common servant only to ask for a full bath after Jesus taught him that servanthood was the way of his Kingdom. He struts boldly out to walk on water with Jesus in Matthew 14:28-33 only to sink quickly with doubt when he is out of the boat.  He talked a big game saying to Jesus, “Even though they all fall away, I will not” (Mark 14:29) only to punk out and deny his king three times when the pressure was on. Yet he also used his speaking ability to represent and speak for the disciples on several occasions.

As a friend and follower, Peter had a very close relationship with his Lord and Jesus seemed to have big plans for Peter as well.  Some of Jesus’ last challenges to Peter were for him to take care of Jesus’ “sheep.” A proverbial way to call him to be a shepherd to God’s people even though in the end it would cost him his life (John 21:15-29). Even though Jesus predicted Peter’s denials before that first Good Friday, he also foreordained Peter’s forgiveness and restoration to leadership. He made sure that Peter knew of his resurrection specifically for he had work for this disciple (Mark 16:7).  The learner would now need to become a leader and bring the message of the gospel to the world.

Peter: Apostle of Jesus

The Book of Acts is a fascinating work that details the spread of the gospel from its Jerusalem roots out into the reaches of the Roman Empire.  As the gospel began to be proclaimed Peter was at the center of the early ministry of Christ’s messengers. The disciples were now apostles with a message to spread to the uttermost parts of the world.  Peter’s role is so prominent in Acts that many outline the book by the ministry of Peter and the ministry of Paul.  The first twelve chapters focus on Peter’s leadership in the Jerusalem context amidst early persecutions and spread of the gospel.  From chapter thirteen on the focus shifts to Paul as a missionary in the empire finally making his way to Rome.

What we find in Peter’s apostolic ministry is that he begins as an emboldened preacher of the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection.  At the feast of Pentecost Peter brings the gospel in power and a huge crowd of people get saved (See Acts 2 and 3).  Furthermore, Peter also serves as a representative of the Christians in Jerusalem and courageously stands before the ruling council with the message of the gospel.  The believers are greatly encouraged by Peter and his faithful Spirit filled leadership brings great unity and boldness to the church (See Acts 4).  Peter also served as a church leader, ruling and judging in the affairs of the people with miraculous signs accompanying his work (See Acts 5). Finally, we see Peter as a missionary helping the gospel forward in the province of Samaria (Acts 8).  We also find a wonderful story of God convincing him and sending him to Gentiles (Acts 10) so that God’s work could begin among them.  This initial work gives way to the apostle Paul’s commissioning into the Gentile world where the gospel spread broadly.  Peter also serves making wise judgments at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 on important questions that new Gentile Christians had about Jewish observances as followers of Jesus. There has been speculation about how Peter ends up in Rome, but how he ends up there after his early missionary work cannot be known with certainty. One thing is sure, all roads did lead to Rome and Peter arrives there to lead the church in the great city as a witness for Jesus.

Peter: Witness for Jesus 

In his final years Peter wrote and transferred much of his thought and teachings of Jesus into the writings of our New Testament. His preaching and teaching about the life and message of Jesus make it to us by way of his secretary John Mark (see below for issues related to this). In the epistles which bear his name he pastors the church well in many ways.  He encouraged believers to persevere in times of suffering with full hope in the gospel and coming Kingdom of God. He spurs us on to mature in our faith and deepen in our commitment to Jesus so that our lives reflect the character of our King.  Jesus taught us that Peter would have a central role in building his church and we certainly see that in the movement that flowered in history after his life.  Though it is difficult to confirm without doubt, tradition teaches that Peter indeed did fulfill his calling and died as a martyr for his faith in Rome during the persecutions of Nero in AD65. Jesus had told Peter that he would eventually give the last full measure of devotion as a leader of his church. It may well be that the once denier of Jesus died as one of his champions on his own cross of crucifixion.[4]

Now I wish to turn briefly to the gospel of Mark for a discussion of how Peter is particularly seen in this work. We will begin that task by looking at Peter’s voice found in the writings of the gospel itself.

Peter in the Gospel of Mark

Peter’s Voice in Mark

The earliest church traditions all associate this gospel with John Mark and his task to record the account of the apostle Peter in writing. The earliest sources we have are from the writings of Papias, a church leader in Hierapolis (in modern day Turkey), and Irenaeus, a bishop from Lyon (in what is modern day France). Papias’ work survives in a text written by the prominent early church historian Eusebius.  It reads as follows:

And the Elder said this also: “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of the things said and done by the lord, but no however in order.” For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow him, but afterwards, as I said, Peter, who adapted his teachings to the needs of his hearers, but not as though he were drawing up a connected account of the Lord’s oracles.  So then Mark made no mistake in thus recording some things just as he remembered them.  For he took forethought for one thing, not to omit any of the things that he had heard, nor to state any of them falsely. [5]

 It is estimated the Papias tradition is very early and dates perhaps to within 90-100 AD.[6] Irenaeus, writing in the second century, recorded the following:

After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.[7]

 The oldest traditions all hold that Mark was the author who arranged the teachings of Peter to give a written account of Jesus Christ to the church. In addition to the tradition there is good internal evidence in the book that Mark’s gospel greatly reflects the preaching of Peter that we see in the book of Acts.[8] New Testament scholar Daniel Wallace provides a great summary of the internal connection with Mark and Peter; I will quote him at length:

1. John Mark had contact with Peter from no later than the mid-40s (Acts 12:12) and it appears that the church met at Mark’s own residence.
2. Both Peter and Mark were connected to the churches in Antioch and Jerusalem.
3. Paul sent Mark from Rome to the Colossian church and to Philemon in 60-62. If Peter were in Rome at this time, Mark would have had contact with him there.
4. 2 Tim 4:11 we find Paul giving Timothy instructions to bring Mark with him from Ephesus to Rom (c. 64). It is possible that he had been outside of Rome since his departure in 62.
5. Mark is with Peter in Rom in c. 65 (1 Peter 5:13) perhaps after his return at Paul’s request. Peter also calls Mark his “son” in this passage indicating a more long-standing relationship.
6. The book of Mark’s outline follows the Petrine teaching recorded in Acts 10:36-41. (1) John the Baptist  (2) Jesus Baptized by John (3) Jesus’ miracles show he is from God (4) he went to Jerusalem (5) was crucified (6) he was raised on the third day. This shows that perhaps Mark even received a framework for the oracles of Jesus from Peter.
7. The low view of Peter and the other apostles in Mark shows that the person writing was not trying to put them on a pedestal.  A non-apostolic writer would have done this unless he was recording what he actually had received from Peter.[9]

So we have good reasons, both the external testimony from church tradition and the content of the book itself, to hold that John Mark arranged the instruction of Peter who gave eyewitness testimony to the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.

In light of this conclusion, in the gospel of Mark we likely have Peter’s accounts of direct events with Jesus and perhaps Mark’s own style reflecting upon them in his writing style.  As we come to the actual text, the question I want to pose is how do we see Peter portrayed in Mark? Do we find Peter put in just a positive light or is there some honest, even critical, stories told about him?[10] The actual data is quite mixed.

Peter in Positive Light

As mentioned in the biographical sketch above Peter is very important in the New Testament and Mark’s gospel is no exception. He is the one who speaks for the apostles, he present with the other “pillars” at crucial times in the life and ministry of Jesus and his progressive understanding of Christ is key to understanding the narrative as Mark crafts the text. Jesus even makes a special mention to tell Peter of his resurrection, reassuring him of his role in the mission of Jesus that is coming. In these ways Peter is a very important, yes positive, character in the gospel of Mark.

Peter in Negative Light

At the same time Peter is a central and cathartic character in Mark and does come off looking rather dumb witted at times. In Mark 1 he is trying to get Jesus to become a superstar prematurely. In Mark 8 Jesus calls him Satan as Peter is opposed to the messianic mission of death and resurrection. Furthermore, he shows much foot-in-mouth disease on the mountain of transfiguration where he really doesn’t know what to say in Mark 9. Peter takes a nap at just the wrong time when Jesus is asking for prayer and support in Mark 14. Finally, one cannot miss Peter full out denying Jesus three times when the pressure of the arrest and pending execution is visited upon the disciples. Some speculate whether the gospel of Mark is part of a wider attack upon Peter[11] as it shows him in such negative light. Perhaps there is a much simpler explanation for how Peter is portrayed?

Peter – Human in Process

Peter throughout the gospel of Mark is certainly one thing. A human being. He is also a person of passion and commitment to Jesus who has given all to follow him. What is seen in the gospel of Mark is a man who has hopes and expectations yet these are not quite in congruence with Jesus’ purposes and plans.  Peter therefore has to be adjusted, he was to be corrected and he has to grow in faith and trust in Jesus’ actual plan. This at times comes off painful as Peter gets it wrong, shows weakness and punks out on Jesus. Yet one thing is clear.  Peter is also a human being Jesus loved and wanted to use in this world. So we see his life and faith grow in the gospel of Mark until the death and resurrection of Jesus.  Mark makes sure we see that Jesus wanted Peter to know what he had risen for as we read in Acts and in church history: God had much work left for Peter in his world.  In Mark’s gospel I believe we are also to see ourselves. We are to see the blind and mute come to see clearly and speak the truth. Just like Peter.  Then we take up seeing eyes and speaking lips to serve Jesus in our world.

Conclusion

We have looked at Peter the disciple, apostle and witness to Jesus and found a remarkable story.  We find a man compelled and called by God to follow Jesus the Messiah.  We find a man whose natural passions and impetuousness sometimes got him in trouble but also gave him huge potential.  In the life of Peter we also find embedded another narrative; the story of God. In this story a great King comes and pays a great price to purchase a great community to be his people. That community would need shepherds and servant leaders as it followed forward in the King’s mission. Such leaders are forged in the battle of life and ministry and take time to grow. Jesus was patient with Peter for this purpose. To take a human being, shape him into an instrument for the hands of God, and unleash him into the world on mission.  Each of our lives holds the same potential in varying degrees. The question is will we repent of sin and come to Jesus? Will we give ourselves fully to his mission once we have tasted his grace and his forgiveness? Peter would exhort to shout amen to this invitation.

I’ll give him the last word here for us:

[9] But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. [10] Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

1 Peter 2:9-10 RSMESV

Following the witness of Peter to give all for Jesus and his gospel mission in the world,

Reid S. Monaghan

Appendix: Was Peter the first pope?

 The confession of Peter of Jesus being the Christ in Mark 8 and its more robust parallel in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew’s gospel has been the source of some historical controversy between Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.  It is taken by the latter to be biblical warrant for the institution of the Roman papacy, the Pope as the father of the church and its supreme teacher in regards to faith and morals.  I will quote the Matthew passage here:

16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

While this brief appendix cannot treat these issues with the rigor which is needed, I do hope it might illuminate the differences between Roman and Protestant/Eastern Orthodox views of the Christian faith.  I will lay out a few points of argument made by each side in regards to the issue of the papacy.

Catholic Arguments for Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (The Pope)

There are many arguments that the Roman church makes in favor of the primacy and leadership of the Pope and the hierarchy of cardinal, bishop and priest which is under him.  The argument usually takes two lines—one from the tradition of the church and the other from Holy Scripture.[12] On the tradition front, there is a section in the classic work of the 2nd century church father Irenaeus to which Roman Christians point to as favoring papacy.  Irenaeus was bishop of Lyon which was located in what is now modern day France.  He wrote extensively confronting several heretical teachings of his day. He is quoted often in various contexts—in this case, in favor of the primacy of Rome.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.[13]

Additionally, the ecumenical council of Nicea in AD 325 listed four major patriarchates/sees (seats of authority) being Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem with Rome given the place of highest honor.  In the late fourth century Constantinople was inserted making the list of honor—Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, though the rivalry of Rome and Constantinople would continue until the east/west split in AD 1054.  One of the issues in this schism was papal authority in Rome which the Eastern Orthodox churches still reject until this day. Finally, the text from Matthew quoted above is used extensively in the argument for the papacy. The keys of the kingdom were given to Peter, who was the first bishop of Rome, the first pope. His successors maintain the highest authority in the church. The succession of bishops, or overseers of the church in Rome, is not the issue. The issue is this man’s rule over the church as the supreme representative of Jesus on the earth today.

Arguments against the Papacy

There are many long standing arguments against the papal authority in church history.  They too interpret both tradition and Scripture to make the argument.  Again, this is necessarily brief and therefore incomplete.  First, it is argued that Peter is but one of a plurality of leaders in the early church.  All traditions attribute great honor and leadership to Peter, but he was by no means infallible.  During the life of Jesus we see Peter’s evolution into a great leader through his many failures (see above).  Yet even post resurrection we see the apostle Paul rebuke Peter for his inconsistent and hypocritical actions in relating to Jew and Gentile in a way contrary to the gospel (See Galatians 2:11-14).  Second, the text in Matthew 16 does not imply the papacy and certainly nothing like papal infallibility.  Many interpretations have been offered which give primacy to Peter and his role in the establishment of the church, but none of this need imply the papacy which evolved in the Roman church during the Middle Ages. Third, the historical honoring of Rome by councils does not warrant the papacy. Rome is honored as a great historical church in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople, but the other great churches and their patriarchates were not subjected to her—in fact, this was not the case with Constantinople and continued to be an issue for hundreds of years and persists until today.  There also has been a reality in history which stated that councils should decide matters of dispute, not one bishop.  This was the case through the first seven ecumenical councils and was argued by the conciliar movement in the late middle ages.  Additionally, the apostolic succession of Popes and their infallibility seems historically dubious.  First, one particular pope, Honorius 1, was declared posthumously to be a heretic and false teacher in AD 681 for advocating something called Monothelitism.  How could he be considered infallible?  Second from AD 1378 to 1417 there were actually two popes in the Western church, one in Rome one in France seated at Avignon.  The Council of Pisa in 1409 disposed both popes and appointed another, but both did not step down leaving the church with three popes for a brief time.  The issues were resolved with the Council of Constance (1414-17) but raised the question of whether a council could rule over the pope for the council had removed the two popes and elected Martin V to power.[14] One last historical issue is of note. Although the Roman church claims it was always the case, papal infallibility was not made Roman teaching until Vatican I in 1870. In conclusion it must also be said that the story of the papal institution has been haunted by grabs for power, accumulation of wealth, immorality and sin. Though the Catholic Church claims that the Pope has not erred and has never officially taught in contradiction to Scripture I think history is replete with examples of both action and teaching which do not reflect infallibility. This only means that Popes are people and are in no way infallible. The highest authority for the church has never been the succession of popes in Rome, but the apostolic teaching of Scripture being faithfully entrusted and passed on through the ages. 

We trust not hierarchy or power to maintain the church, but the Spirit and the Word of God. There are errors on all sides…Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic.  There are none who have everything perfect in life, faith and doctrine. Yet our disputes are resolved in humility, standing under, not over the very Word of God in Holy Scripture.  History and our lives are messy, we no doubt move forward with truth and at times error.  But much as Luther echoed long ago under great pressure to recant his views—our consciences are chained to the Word of God…here we stand, we can do no other.

Notes

[1] Here I will follow a basic outline of Peter’s life which focuses on his role as disciple in the gospels, apostle and messenger in the book of Acts and then suffering witness to his Lord as church leader in Rome. This approach is taken in both the Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996). New Bible dictionary (3rd ed.). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. and The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised. 1988 (G. W. Bromiley, Ed.). Wm. B. Eerdmans.

[2] μαθητής, Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed.) (609). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[3] The book of Galatians is one of the earliest Pauline epistles written around AD 48/49. First Corinthians was most likely written around AD53 but the resurrection narrative in chapter 15 is likely even earlier than this. The clear reality is that Peter and his role was well known even before the writing of Mark’s gospel in the 60s.

[4] Peter is said by many in the first few centuries of the church to have died by way of an upside down crucifixion.

[5] Ibid., 8.

[6] James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2002), 4.

[7] Irenaeus. Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 1).

[8] William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark; the English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand Rapids,: Eerdmans, 1974), 10-12.

[9] Daniel Wallace, “Mark: Introduction, Argument, and Outline”, Bible.org http://bible.org/seriespage/mark-introduction-argument-and-outline (accessed Jan 4 2012).

[10] Even to those who may not conclude that Peter’s direct testimony is found in the gospel, there has been reflection as to whether Mark casts a positive or negative light upon Peter. See E. Best, “Peter in the Gospel According to Mark”, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 40, 1978.  

[11] Best, 558.

[12] It should be noted that in the Roman religion that Scripture and the teaching Tradition of the church are equal forms of authority which are seen as complementary and never contradictory.   Protestants hold that Scripture is the supreme authority and is the corrective and judge of all human teaching in the church.

[13] Irenaues, Against Heresies 3.3.2—http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

[14] For a good summary of church history during this era see Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol 1 (New York: HarperOne, 1984) - See particularly the chapter on the Medieval Papacy.

Sojourner Truth - When I found Jesus

Sojourner Truth (1797-1883)

Each of our lives is shaped by a convoluted set of circumstances which mix in families, human culture and historical events and opportunities. Furthermore, Scripture teaches us that in all the seemingly random events, myriad of human choices and activity of spiritual forces that God is providentially guiding and ordering all things. Certain human lives are particularly marked by a convergence of people, events and history such that the fingerprints of God become more evidently seen.  One such individual was a woman born unnoticed, in bondage, under the name Isabella Baumfree. She died known to the whole nation as Sojourner Truth.

Early Life

Sojourner Truth was born at the close of the revolutionary century in America. She arrived into the world in 1797 under the slave name of Isabella.[1] She was born in Ulster County, New York[2] and was sold several times before becoming the property of one John Dumont at the age of thirteen[3]. She underwent brutal treatment and was beaten often as a child beginning at the tender age of nine. Slavery was made illegal in New York State by 1827 but Isabella would flee the tyranny of her masters three months ahead of this time. Her master had promised to free her and provide housing for her and her children in 1826, but upon his reneging on this promise she took matters in her own hands and walked away.[4] She would find shelter in the home of Issac and Maria Van Wagener who were devout Quakers. She recounted how God had shown her their home in a vision prior to her taking refuge there.[5]

An interesting fact from this period of her life involves the vengeful act taken by her former master. In light of her escape, he sold one of her sons back into slavery in Alabama where slavery had not yet been abolished. She actually sued her former master as New York law did not allow slaves to be sold across state lines. She won in court and her son was reconciled to the family.[6]

A New Name and New Calling

Truth’s faith was beginning to deepen and in this period of her story and she describes an awakening to Jesus that would shape the direction of her life. According to her narrated biography, A Narrative of Sojourner Truth,[7] she experienced a conversion which she described as follows:

God revealed himself to her, with all the suddenness of a flash of lightning, showing her, ‘in the twinkling of an eye, that he was all over’–that he pervaded the universe–‘and that there was no place where God was not.’ She became instantly conscious of her great sin in forgetting her almighty Friend and ‘ever-present help in time of trouble.

In 1843 she moved to New York City and had a time of wandering among some of the cults and false teachers of the great city. After coming out of these groups she became a member of The Mother African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, a congregation with its roots in historic biblical Christianity.[8] She would remain affiliated the AME Zion denomination for the rest of her life. At this juncture, she also sought God for a new name that would connect with her deep felt calling. She sensed that God wanted her to be called “Sojourner” as she was to “travel up an’ down the land, showin’ people their sins, an’ bein’ a sign unto them” and “Truth” as “I was to declare the truth to the people.”[9] Under this new name, one not chosen by slave masters, she set out to influence her world.

Activism

Sojourner Truth began to speak widely and her message would come to center on three great subjects. First, she spoke on the subject of Jesus changing her life, declaring on one occasion to a group of ministers the following:

“When I preaches,” she said, “I has just one text to preach from, an’ I always preaches from this one. My text is, “When I found Jesus.”[10]

She also took up the great cause of the 19^th century which was joined by many others who named the name of Christ, that of the abolition of slavery. This caused her to connect and work with some of the looming figures of the abolitionist movement including William Lloyd Garrison and the imminent Frederick Douglas[11]. In addition to the abolitionist cause, she also took up women’s rights in the early 1850s. In 1851, while giving a speech in Akron, Ohio she spoke what would become her most famous and remembered words:

And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm. I have plowed, I have planted, and I have gathered into barns. And no man could head me. And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man—when I could get it—and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne children and seen most of them sold into slavery, and when I cried out with a mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me. And ain’t I a woman?[12]

Sojourner truth began her life in slavery and over the course of one lifetime she found freedom, met the risen Jesus, pointed out the sins of slavery and struggled for equality for women. While she remained illiterate her entire life she was able to make a myriad of speeches and gain an audience with Abraham Lincoln.[13] Sojourner Truth would retire to Battle Creek Michigan in 1875 and remained there until she died on November 26, 1883.

To close this brief biography I want to share a few things I learned reading about the life of Sojourner Truth.

Things I Learned

Sojourner Truth was born into a time of injustice and bondage in the early days of the American Republic. Though uneducated, she saw her life as usable in the hands of God and did not shrink back from pursuing what she sensed as a divine call. She was one who exercised great courage and boldness in her life which was exhibited on many occasions. She stood up to a slave master suing him for his breach of the law in the New York courts. She would not shrink back from speaking even when under threats and pressure to remain silent. In one particular instance she was beaten by a mob which left her walking with a cane for the remainder of her days. On another occasion, after disobeying a segregated street car ordinance in Washington DC, she was violently thrown from one of the cars by the conductor. This was some 90 years before a similar protest was taken up by Rosa Parks to fight segregation on the buses of Montgomery Alabama in 1955. Yet even in the midst of such realities Sojourner Truth maintained a quick wit and a vibrant spirit. Two stories demonstrate this well. First, when some people heckled and accused her of being a man disguised as a woman she simply opened her blouse on stage to settle the matter; an open-and-shut case.[14] On another occasion, when the venue where she was supposed to speak was threatened to be burned down, she replied “Then I will speak to the ashes.”[15] Finally she demonstrated in her life what it meant to suffer as a follower of Jesus. She had been beaten cruelly in her childhood, raised her own children in slavery, was forced to do hard labor, was beaten by mobs, thrown from a street car and yet she never gave up. In fact, when Frederick Douglas was despairing about the cause of abolition in 1852, Truth rose up and shouted from the congregation, “Frederick, is God dead?”[16] No, he was not and the sojourn of truth in the American experience resulted in the abolition of slavery with the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865.

As a follower of Jesus, Sojourner Truth was never able to read the Scriptures herself, yet she still committed to having Bible stories read to her over and over again for her understanding.[17] Though unable to have formal theological training, she lived and acted upon that which she did know. The Jesus died for her and could change people’s lives. How much more should the literate believer attend themselves to the words of God in our day?  

As we reflect upon the lives of others who have been transformed by forgiveness and grace, let us too follow with passion and courage the one who lived and died and rose again.

Reid S. Monaghan

EndNotes

---

[1] Mark Gali and Ted Olsen, ed. 131 Christians that Everyone Should Know, (Nashville: Broadman and Holman) 2000, 289.

[2] Marvin A. McMickle, African American Christian Heritage, (Valley Forge: Judson Press) 2002, 165.

[3] Gali and Olsen, 289.

[4] McMickle. An interesting accounting of the story has Truth saying the following: “I did not run off, for I thought that wicked, but I walked off, believing that to be all right.” See Women in History, Sojourner Truth (Isabella Baumfree) http://www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/trut-soj.htm

[5] Gali and Olsen.

[6] McMickle.

[7] A Narrative of Sojourner Truth, was published in 1850. It is available online http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/truth/1850/1850.html  Her autobiographical account was dictated orally and written down by one Olive Gilbert as Truth was illiterate.

[8] McMickle.

[9] Gali and Olsen.

[10] Ibid.

[11] A really challenging read from history is Douglas’ powerful call out of the church and white Christians in his day. See “The Church and Prejudice” http://www.frederickdouglass.org/speeches/index.html#church

[12] Gali and Olsen, 290.

[13] Ibid.

[14] McMickle, 166.

[15] Gali and Olsen, 289.

[16] McMickle.

[17] Ibid.

Isaac Watts - Joy to the World

Introduction

There have been many things born in barns over the years. In one sense, Jesus himself had such a rustic beginning and in many ways the modern hymnody movement in the English speaking world was born in a barn. In May 1731 Philip Doddridge, a minister in the congregational church, dispatched a joyous letter to his friend Isaac Watts.  Watts and Doddridge were a part of a movement who were known as non-conformists, those who were not a part of the official state church on England.  Doddridge had held a service in a barn for “plain country people” in which they sang one of Watts’s hymns which had brought a tearful and celebratory response within the congregation present.[1] The church in the English speaking world began to sing, and write its own songs, and sing some more. In many ways, we are the recipients of their work.  The churches in Europe had typically sung from the Psalter, the psalms of the Old Testament.  Watts and those following after him wrote songs in the language of the common people expressing biblical theology in the style and language of the people.  The Protestant churches of England and the American colonies were profoundly impacted by this upheaval. Historian Mark Noll in his early chapter of the book Wonderful Words of Life – Hymns in American Protestant History and Theology sums up well the influence of hymn singing on the faith and religion of people in the early days of the evangelical movement of the early 18^th century:

From the early generations of evangelicals, hymn singing became almost sacramental. It was the one physical activity that all evangelicals shared and it was the one experience that bound them most closely together with each other. In fact, it is difficult to discover any significant event, person, or structure of early Evangelicalism that did not involve the singing of hymns. It is likewise difficult to discover any significant experience of singing or hands have not been freshly written by the evangelicals themselves (or by Isaac Watts who befriended them and his hands they embraced enthusiastically from the start)[2].

In the 18^th century revivals of England and her colonies figures such as Jonathan Edwards, Charles and John Wesley and George Whitfield take up much of the historical horizon. Isaac Watts perhaps had as large an impact upon this time yet his voice is not as pronounced in our histories. Interestingly it was this man’s hymns and his courageous break with tradition that brought a myriad of voices to life in those striking years of awakening and revival.  So much is the influence of Watts on the history of evangelical hymn writing that Mouw and Noll entitled the first section of their book on English Protestant Hymn singing, “In the Beginning was Watts”. [3]

The Beginnings of Watts

Isaac Watts was born in 1674 in the town of Southampton in England.  He was raised by a father of strong biblical convictions.  His father stood so much by his convictions that he did some jail time for his dissent from the Church of England and was apparently on lock down when little Isaac was born.[4] During his lifetime England underwent tumultuous vacillations with the forces of Catholicism and Protestantism still yet in struggle for the soul of the island nation. Bernard Manning, in a paper on Watts delivered at Cambridge in 1937, made this commentary on the times in which Watts lived his life:

At the very end of his life, Dr. Watts had the satisfaction of witnessing in the failure of the ‘45 the collapse of the Young Pretender, and the final deliverance of Great Britain from the dangers that had menaced it since the death of Oliver Cromwell. The Constitution was saved from Divine Right. Protestantism was saved from France and the Pope. Dissent was saved from Toryism and persecution. Watts, then, was one of those fortunate persons whose life coincides with the increasing triumph of his own cause. The right people win. The wicked are cast down. All things — visibly — work together for good to them that love God. The note of cheerfulness — perhaps the most distinct note in Watts’s poetry — comes appropriately from such a setting.[5]

Though the end saw the triumph of Watt’s community and its beliefs, his life was lived in a time of great change, some of which he would later bring to the churches himself. 

As a young boy Watts showed himself to be quite intelligent and somewhat a master of languages.  He began learning Latin at age four and went on to master of Greek, Hebrew and French.[6] Apparently he had a tendency towards rhyming which makes me think he would drop some great freestyle if living in our day. One impish little instance from his youth is recorded by Norman Mable:

One morning while the household were engaged in family prayers little Isaac was heard to giggle. The other worshippers were very shocked, and when devotions were over his father demanded in a freezing tone why he had laughed. ‘Because, replied the boy nervously, while he pointed to the bell-rope that hung by the fire-place, I saw a mouse running up that; and it came to my mind: There was a mouse for want of stairs, Ran up a rope to say his prayers. The father, without a word, turned to a shelf and took down the rod, whereupon poor little Isaac, falling on his knees, begged with streaming eyes: father, father, pity take, And I will no more verses make.[7]

Nice flow, young Isaac, nice flow. 

As a member of a non-conformist community he was not permitted to study at Oxford and Cambridge the bastions of English intellectualism.[8] This lack of pomp and pedigree did not thwart him becoming a first rate thinker and scholar albeit at what would have been considered a secondary school. Watts’s studies led him into Christian ministry as a pastor and theologian but he was also a first rate logician.  It is less known but Watts’s textbook on Logic was used in as the standard text at Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard and Yale and it found use for decades in the academies.[9]  Yet most rightly remember Watts for the six hundred or some hymns he wrote and the precious poetical gems still sung in churches until this day. Isaac Watts departed this earth in 1748 but his influence would echo long after his flesh had passed away.

Watts’s Influence

We cannot say enough about Watt’s influence upon the singing scenes of the English speaking churches in the 18^th and 19^th century.  After his studies in college he began to be frustrated with the singing and music in the churches and complained about it. Having a good dad, Watts was challenged by his father to come up with something better.[10] He did.  Watts began writing “new hymns” and published several volumes in the early 1700s.  Hymns and Spiritual Songs, in Three Books (1707) and Psalms of David Imitated (1719) were perhaps most influential in his efforts to reform singing in the churches.[11] The latter was an effort to state some of the biblical Psalms with Christ-centered meaning and the poetic structure of the times.  Not surprisingly this was opposed vigorously by some traditionalist with some wonderfully titled pamphlets Vindication of David’s Psalms from Mr. I. Watts’s Erroneous Notions and Reasons wherefore Christians ought to worship Go, not with Dr. Watts’s Psalms, but with David’s Psalms.[12]  Particularly opposed was Thomas Bradbury who referred to Watts’s works as whims instead of hymns.[13] Yet Watts’s work would find traction in hungry souls seeking some freshness and heart expression in the worship of their great God and King.  His hymns took particular root in the American colonies.

Watt’s work was known in the colonies from his personal connection and correspondence with church leaders in New England.  It is known that Cotton Mather, had received copies of Watts’s work directly from the English poet himself[14] and in 1729 his Psalms of David was published in the colonies by none other than Benjamin Franklin.[15]

Watts’s influence on colonial and then later American Christian faith has been profound. His songs crossed racial boundaries which were being sung in black and white churches. Congregations of African slaves took to Watts’s music so much that a certain type of singing became known as “Dr. Watts” singing.[16] His hymn When I Survey the Wondrous Cross has been labeled by some greatest hymn in the English language.[17] The 19^th century abolitionist and preacher Henry Ward Beecher had this to say of the impact of Watts:

When believers analyze their religion emotions, it is as common to trace them back to the early hymns of childhood as to the Bible itself. At least until very recently, most English-speaking Protestants who thought about heaven did so more in the terms of Dr. Watts than of the Revelation of St. John.[18]

This broad influence continued in England as well with a profound influence on the singing of Charles Haddon Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle.[19]  Finally, in our own day, churches continue to sing classic hymns by Isaac Watts. Today Sojourn Community Church in Louisville Kentucky has put out two albums which remix the hymns in fresh new music and styles.[20] I think Dr. Watts would likely approve.   Yet one cannot miss Dr. Watts as Christmastime when his wonderful hymn Joy to the World bursts forth new each year with resounding joy. We will close with a brief treatment of that work.

Joy to the World

The text of Joy to the World was originally titled “The Messiah’s Coming and Kingdom” when it first appeared in Watts’s Psalms of David Imitated of 1719.[21] It was his interpretation of Psalm 98 which read in the King James Bible, “Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise.” Watts connected the joy found in the Psalm to the worship and praise of the coming Messiah. The song was conceived by Watts as a poem celebrating the second and final coming of Jesus but as we know, it has become a precious Christmas carol for the churches.  It would not get set in its current musical form until a Jersey born son named Lowell Mason put his musical arrangements to the hymn in 1836.[22] In 1911 a recording of Joy to the World by Elise Stevenson and Trinity Choir climbed up into the top five on contemporary charts; a remarkable feat for a song typically sung in houses of worship.[23]

Joy to the World continues to receive love and attention by Christians who sing the words of Dr. Isaac Watts set to the Lowell Mason tune.  It celebrates the King of Kings who comes to make blessings flow as far as the curse of sin and death is found.  Sins and sorrows will flow no more when King Jesus renews all things.

Repeat the sounding joy my friends, repeat the sounding joy.

Notes

---

[1] Mark A. Noll, “The Defining Role of Hymns in Early Evangelicalism,” in Wonderful Words of Life : Hymns in American Protestant History and Theology, ed. Richard J. Mouw and Mark A. Noll(Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2004), 3-4.

[2] Ibid., 4.

[3] Ibid., 1.

[4] Ace Collins, Stories Behind the Best-Loved Songs of Christmas (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001), 108.

[5] Bernard Manning, “The Hymns of Isaac Watts,” in The Hymns of Wesley and Watts: Five Papers (The Epworth Press  1942). Online edition published in the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/manning/wesleyhymns.P4.html

[6] “Biography of Isaac Watts.” http://www.ccel.org/w/watts/ (accessed 12/15/2011).

[7] Norman Mable, “Popular Hymns and Their Writers ” ( Independent Press Ltd.). Locations 3004-3011

[8] “Biography of Isaac Watts.”

[9] The book’s short title is simple Logic but in the original form, and typical of titles in that time, it was Logic, or, The Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry after Truth: With a Variety of Rules to Guard against Error in the Affairs of Religion and Human Life, as Well as in the Sciences

[10] Collins, 108.

[11] Esther Rothenbusch Crookshank, “We’re Marching to Zion: Isaac Watts in Early America,” in Worderful Words of Life, Hymns in American Protestant History and Theology, ed. Richard Mouw and Mark Noll(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 18.

[12] Ibid., 22.

[13] Robert J. Morgan, Then Sings My Soul 2vols. (Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2004), Book 2, 24.

[14]  Crookshank, 24.

[15] “Biography of Isaac Watts.”

[16] Crookshank, 34.

[17] Kenneth W. Osbeck, 101 Hymn Stories (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1982), 278.

[18] Crookshank, 17.

[19] C. H. Spurgeon, Our Own Hymn Book: A Collection of Psalms and Hymns for Public, Social and Private Worship (London: Passmore & Alabaster., 1883).

[20] See Sojourn Music, Sojourn Community Church http://www.sojournmusic.com/category/albums/ (accessed December 16 2011). I particularly recommend the Watts remix “Over the Grave”

[21] Kenneth W. Osbeck, Amazing Grace : 366 Inspiring Hymn Stories for Daily Devotions (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1990).

[22] Collins, 112.

[23] Ibid., 113.

Bibliography

“Biography of Isaac Watts.” http://www.ccel.org/w/watts/ [accessed 12/15/2011].

Collins, Ace. Stories Behind the Best-Loved Songs of Christmas. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001.

Crookshank, Esther Rothenbusch. “We’re Marching to Zion: Isaac Watts in Early America.” In Worderful Words of Life, Hymns in American Protestant History and Theology, edited by Richard Mouw and Mark Noll. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Mable, Norman. Popular Hymns and Their Writers Kindle Edition ed.: Independent Press Ltd.

Manning, Bernard. “The Hymns of Isaac Watts.” In The Hymns of Wesley and Watts: Five Papers: The Epworth Press  1942.

Morgan, Robert J. Then Sings My Soul 2vols. Nashville, Tenn.: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2004.

Music, Sojourn, Sojourn Community Church http://www.sojournmusic.com/category/albums/ (accessed December 16 2011).

Noll, Mark A. “The Defining Role of Hymns in Early Evangelicalism.” In Wonderful Words of Life : Hymns in American Protestant History and Theology, edited by Richard J. Mouw and Mark A. Noll, xx, 288 p. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 2004.

Osbeck, Kenneth W. 101 Hymn Stories. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1982.

________. Amazing Grace : 366 Inspiring Hymn Stories for Daily Devotions. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1990.

Spurgeon, C. H. Our Own Hymn Book: A Collection of Psalms and Hymns for Public, Social and Private Worship. London: Passmore & Alabaster., 1883.

The Silent Collapse - Thoughts from GK Chesterton

The following is an excerpt from a new biography on GK Chesterton entitled “Defiant Joy - The Remarkable Life and Impact of GK Chesterton” by Kevin Belmonte. It highlights the unraveling of Western thought which Chesterton observed in his time. I believe the confusion on these matters continues today.

The longer, set off quotation below is from his 1907 work Heretics. Much of Chesterton’s poignant cultural critique was on the eve of a world that spawned the two most horrific wars in human history…all in the name of civilization, progress and freeing the masses from the past. The 20th century was wrought by highly educated people claiming to seek the “good” of the world. Chesterton was a prophet in his day warning of madness being spoken in his day. He lived to see much of it take place around him. For collapses in thinking always proceed collapses in doing.

Chesterton warned that a “great and silent collapse” had taken place in his time. “All previous ages have sweated and been crucified in an attempt to realize what is really the right life, what was really the good man. A definite part of the modern world has come beyond question to the conclusion that there is no answer to these questions.

Acquiescing in this mind-set was an act of sheer and dangerous folly. For Chesterton, it came down to this: many of his contemporaries were seeking to solace themselves in a series of self-deceptions.

Every one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good. We are found of talking about “liberty”; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about “progress”; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about “education”; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. The modern man says, “Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty.”

This is, logically rendered, “Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it.” He says “Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress.” This, logically stated, means, “Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it.” He says, “Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education.” This, clearly expressed, means, “We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children.”

Chesterton called such self-deception “solemn folly”…

Kevin Belmonte, Defiant Joy - The Remarkable Life and Impact of GK Chesterton, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011) 89, 90

I encourage you to take up some Chesterton if you have never read any of his works. I recommend his classic 1908 work Orthodoxy is the best place to begin. Enjoy.

St. Anselm's Prayers

Fast Facts on St. Anselm of Caterbury

• Lived: 1033-1109
• Calling: Bishop in England
• Remembered for:  Works in philosophy and theology, particularly for an ontological argument for God’s existence and meditations on the incarnation and the atonement. 

In reading St. Anselm’s The Proslogian over the last ten years of my life I have found myself returning to several of his prayers in my devotional moorings. These prayers continue to hold influence in my life.  The prayers of chapter one in particular have pushed me forward towards God in a really good way. Here is a sampling.

UP now, slight man! flee, for a little while, thy occupations; hide thyself, for a time, from thy disturbing thoughts. Cast aside, now, thy burdensome cares, and put away thy toilsome business. Yield room for some little time to God; and rest for a little time in him. Enter the inner chamber of thy mind; shut out all thoughts save that of God, and such as can aid thee in seeking him; close thy door and seek him. Speak now, my whole heart! speak now to God, saying, I seek thy face; thy face, Lord, will I seek (). And come thou now, O Lord my God, teach my heart where and how it may seek thee, where and how it may find thee.

Maybe its my background in amateur wrestling that makes me love talk like that. Get up little man! His calls to himself to get up and get to prayer and deep meditation before God have both convicted me and encouraged me deeply.  Anselm’s prayers are particularly helpful for those who either love or hate theological reflection. Anselm serves as a great example to us in that we can indeed think deep thoughts about God, yet maintain a burning heart for God. The doing of theology, philosophy and categories of biblical doctrine can be pursued, yes should be pursued, with a pious zeal for God. 

Having a zeal which is according to the knowledge of God is indeed a biblical concept. By the negative way we find this idea in Romans 10 where Paul speaks of Israel having a zeal which is NOT according to knowledge.  As one who loves theology I need to learn to neither lose God in the books nor give way to a non-thinking piety. The former grows dry and cold while the latter stops short of the hard work of integrating gospel thinking throughout all of life.  To cease doing this hard work of theological integration or to lose a rich love for Jesus in the gospel will leave God’s people disconnected from his mission in the world.  We will be steeped in an irrelevant ignorance or not walk in the spiritual vitality from which Paul could say “be imitators of me as I am of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:1) 

Anselm shows me that both “head” and “heart” matter in our love for God.  Afterall, was it not Jesus who taught us to love God with all that we are? 

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Yes, all that we are was made by him and for him.  So let us have both mind and heart drawn upward and be set ablaze by our communion with God.  Afterall, the prayer above is proceeding a work in philosophical theology; a matter that hardly seemed boring to the old archbishop of Canterbury.

The Rev. Richard Allen

The Reverand Richard Allen (1760-1831)
Picture by Daniel Payne (Original Source)

On Being First

To be the first to do something in history is often seen as a sign of greatness surrounded by glory.  The first man on the moon, the first man to break the sound barrier, the first woman to hold elected office, the first African American president.  Yet we must not forget the difficulty and struggle of being the first to break barriers of injustice set up by systems of inequality and oppression over long periods of time. Richard Allen was a such a man who showed great strength and courage in his life.  He did not choose a path of division and strife, but he firmly walked forward with a gospel call on his life, caring deeply for the souls of his fellow Africans in America.  Rev Allen was one of the founding fathers of America that too few have heard about. He was a man who worked diligently for King Jesus and his Kingdom in the early days of American experience.

The Story of Richard Allen

Richard was born a slave in Philadelphia on February 14th 1760.¹ He was born into the household of one Benjamin Chew who was an influential attorney and at a time was chief justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.²  When Allen was a young boy he and his family were sold to a farmer just outside of Dover, Delaware.  At the age of seventeen he had a profound conversion to Jesus Christ and began to preach the gospel to those with whom he worked as well as in surrounding Methodist churches.  His ministry was so powerful his owner actually was converted to Christ through his witness. This eventually led to Allen being permitted to work to purchase his freedom by a process known as gradual manumission.³

During the revolutionary war years Allen drove a wagon delivering salt an occasion which he used as opportunity to preach the gospel as a traveling evangelist.  As was the practice of Methodist founder John Wesley, Allen preached a circuit whereby he would travel place to place proclaiming the salvation of Jesus Christ. He preached throughout Delaware and other Mid Atlantic states including the great state of New Jersey. ⁴

After the revolutionary war many important changes happened in the Methodist church of which Allen was a part.  First, in 1784 John Wesley established the Methodist Episcopal Church in America with Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as its overseers.⁵  This united the Methodists as one church and a separate entity from its Anglican (Church of England) roots.  Allen was also befriended by Asbury who even invited him to travel on the road and preach with him. Though they remained deeply connected, Allen declined the more extensive travel due to segregated and harsh living conditions which were imposed upon blacks at the time.⁶

In 1786 he completed the process of manumission and purchased his freedom for $2,000.  In the same year he returned to Philadelphia as a free man and became a member of St. George’s Methodist Church.  His faithful ministry and leadership began to draw many more black members into the congregation. It was at this time that racial discrimination began to assert its head inside the church of Jesus Christ. A sinful policy of segregated seating (see James 2:1-9) was implemented pushing black members to the side walls and into the balcony while giving privileged seating to whites. Though this idea was opposed by both black and white members, a direct contradiction to the gospel was made policy at St. Georges.⁷  These tensions were to come to a point of clarity for Allen and many of his friends at a sobering occurrence in 1787. In the very same year the US constitution was being worked on in the city of Philadelphia where slaves were to be treated numerically as 3/5ths of a man.

Some black members of the church were kneeling in prayer along with Absalom Jones. Jones, along with Allen, was a recognized leaders in the church. During the service one of the white trustees interrupted their prayers telling them they had to move from where they had already been directed to sit. The following is one recounting⁸ of the interaction that took place:

“You must get up” the trustee said. “You must not kneel here”

“Wait until prayer is over” Jones answered.

“No you must get up now, or I will call for aid and force you away”

“Wait until prayer is over” Jones repeated, “And I will get up and trouble you no more.”

The incident ended with the trustee forcibly removing their praying brothers.  At this, Allen and the black members of St. George walked out of its doors.  Though Jones would leave to form an African American congregation in the Episcopal church, Allen was a Methodist through and through and had no desire to leave the denomination.  His opinion was that the Methodist church was the best place for he and other black Christians because, in his words, “the plain and simple gospel suits best for any people.”⁹

Allen’s desire to see blacks in America worship without hindrance and hear the gospel clearly finally persuaded him to act. In 1794 he purchased an old blacksmith building and converted it to a place of worship.  Bishop Francis Asbury consecrated the building and Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church was born.¹⁰  Yet the inequality persisted as they had to depend on white ministers until Allen was ordained as a deacon by Asbury in 1799.¹¹ From 1800-1816 the Methodists attempted to control Allen and Bethel.  These difficulties culminated with Allen and Bethel winning a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which ruled the real property of the church belonged to the congregation.¹²  Allen was ordained an elder in the Methodist church in 1816 yet he knew they could not freely worship and determine their own affairs while under the thumb of a paternalistic and controlling white influence.

In the spring of 1816 black congregations of Methodists in Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland banded together to form the first black Christian denomination in America.  Allen was voted its first bishop and, true to his Methodist roots and convictions, the African Methodist Episcopal Church was born.¹³ The denomination experienced rapid growth throughout the 1800s and in the post Civil War years. Today it is estimated that AME church has approximately 2.5 million members and some 7000 congregations.¹⁴

The Legacy of Richard Allen

Allen has left many things for us as we look back upon his life and actions in history.  First, Allen was first and foremost a Christian and follower of Jesus Christ.  He experienced a great gospel awakening that set him forth on the mission of Jesus in his time. We would be wise to follow his example. Second, he stood for justice and equality among all people and races. He worked in the cause of abolition and was a leader for civil rights. This was because of his conviction that Jesus Christ was creator and savior of all people not some. Equality came from God it was not granted by other men.  Third, he was an advocate for black people to receive an equal hearing of the gospel and would not stand for subjugation within the churches.  He saw this as an affront to the gospel and he labored many years to stay “together” with his white sisters and brothers in Christ. He left when their racial discrimination blatantly contradicted the message of the gospel.

The black churches in America have a great history and legacy of gospel ministry and social change in America. The church’s continued influence for justice in our country still runs deep. We thank God for the life, labor and vision of traditionally black denominations in our land.  We also live in a time where the vision of heaven—one people from many tribes, tongues, ethnicities have opportunity to worship freely in unity on the earth as a foretaste to how we will spend eternity.  It is a great joy that Jacob’s Well has among its members Asians, Indians, African Americans, Latinos, Whites and many beautiful combinations of each.  It is our hope that Richard Allen’s passion for the gospel of Jesus Christ and his unwavering commitment to justice would live on among us today at Jacob’s Well.

Notes 

1. Marvin A. McMickle, An Encyclopedia of African American Christian History (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 2002), 2.

2. Curtis, Lang and Petersen, The 100  Most Important Events in Christian History (Grand Rapids: Revel, 1991) 150.  For a brief treatment on Benjamin Chew, see his wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Chew

3. See Gali and Olsen, 131 Chritians Everyone Should Know (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2000) 187 and McMickle, 2.

4. Curtis, Lang and Peterson, 150.

5. See Gali and Olsen, “Francis Asbury”, 185.

6. McMickle, 2.

7. Ibid.

8. Curtis, Lang and Peterson 149.

9. Gali and Olsen, 188.

10.  Ibid.

11. Curtis, Lang and Peterson, 151.

12. Gali and Olsen.

13. Curtis, Lang and Peterson.

14. McMickle, 3.

15. See World Council of Churches AME page

Jesus...Fully God, Fully Human

Paul’s letter to the Colossians is a short letter with a singular focus.  He wants us to see that Jesus is enough for God’s people.  In the middle of Chapter 1 he goes to some length to explain to us who Jesus really is in all his glory.  In looking at what some have deemed the “Christ Hymn”¹ of Colossians, we quite literally come to one of the mountaintop vistas in the entire Bible.  As Jesus is the central focus of the Bible (Luke 24:27) such clear and airy Christology² found Colossians 1:15-20 is indeed one of the high points of the Bible.  This passage has been central to the church’s understanding of Jesus and has been part of a robust theological discussion over the years.

The Identity of Jesus in Early Church History

The identity of Jesus was of extreme importance to Christians in every era of history but was especially central to his earliest followers.  Jesus himself walked on the earth, lived his life with a community of people, preached, taught, was crucified and raised from death.  Jesus is truly a complex person. In the New Testament he is at once a very human, human being. At the same time he claimed to be God striding upon the soils of planet earth.  After his life, Jesus’s apostles and their associates wrote down his story, his teachings and eyewitness accounts³ of his death and resurrection in what we call the “Gospels” of the New Testament. There are four of these—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.⁴ In addition to these gospels there are various sections of the other New Testament writings which speak to the identity of Jesus. 

Early Controversies 

There was some debate among the early Christians as to whether Jesus was “more human” (ala Arianism—he was not fully God) or “more God.” (ala Docetism—a view that said he just appeared human). Some wanted to focus more on his humanity, others on his divinity and some wanted to keep the divine and human separated. There is good reason for this debate.  The Bible is vehemently and without equivocation monotheistic.  There is only one God (see Deuteronomy 6:4; 2 Samuel 7:22; Isaiah 44:6-8, 45:5; Romans 3:30; Ephesians 4:4-6; James 2:19) and yet Jesus claims to be God and prays to God as his Father.  Something wonderful and different is up here! 

Historically, the truth of Jesus is found in the New Testament teaching.  Clarity on all this matters took some time, but a strong unity was forged in the early creeds and councils of the church.  The major controversy was between followers of Arias (who taught that Jesus was a created being and not eternal God) and those following the New Testament in holding God/Humanity of Jesus together in one person. This position’s leader was an Egyptian named Athanasius.  These two positions were debated at the Council of Nicea in AD 325.  This council was to resolve this debate about the nature of Jesus Christ and was not in any way a council that “gave the church the Bible” or any other of Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code speculation.⁵

Theological Consensus

The council of Nicea resulted in a big thumbs down on Arias’ doctrines declaring them to be heresy.  The council also affirmed the biblical teaching with an early formation of the Nicene Creed.  This document was the statement around which Christians unified in relationship to the unique identity of the God of the Bible as a Triune being existing eternally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  The following is just a snippet that may sound familiar to those who grew up in liturgical church traditions.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.  Through him all things were made.  For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.  On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

The Nicene creed simply articulated the teaching of the Bible that Jesus was indeed God. More doctrinal precision was provided by the Chalcedonian definition in AD 451 which clarified the biblical teaching that Jesus was fully human and full God in one person.  He was not sort of human and really God or sort of God and kinda human.  The definition reads as follow.

Therefore, following the holy fathers [early church leaders/pastors], we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us. ⁶

Though we might need a dictionary along with us to read the above, it is indeed an awesome statement.  The teachings of these creeds about Jesus are simply articulations of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles and have played a unifying role in church history.⁷ In fact, all Christians from every tradition—Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical⁸ are in agreement on the truths of these creeds. Why? They come from the Bible which bears witness to this unique person. In fact, Jesus is revealed in the Scripture as the most unique person who ever lived. The following will be but a simple survey of some of the biblical teaching.

The Biblical Teaching

Jesus is not normal. Never was, never will be.  In fact, he is the most startling, unique, mysterious, glorious, compelling, magnetic, loving and true person who ever lived.  The Scriptures reveal to us both truths that Jesus was God and man.  The following will be a listing of some of the biblical teaching. 

He is man

In the Old Testament we are taught that the coming Messiah/Christ would be a human being (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6,7). Jesus fulfills this in every way. First, he was born into and grew up in a human family (Luke 1-2).  Second, he exhibits the full range of human emotions in the gospels. He was tired, hungry, thirsty and in his humanity he had limited knowledge (John 4:6-7 and 19:28, Mark 13:32).  Third, Philippians 2:6-8 clearly teaches that Jesus, though was in very nature God,  humbled himself and became human.  Fourth, He was tempted just as we are yet did not sin. (Matthew 4, Hebrews 4:15) Some erroneously teach that to be human means to be sinful.  Yet we see Jesus fully human without sin.  Finally, all the gospels record that Jesus bled and died on the cross.  It is simple for us to understand Jesus was an historical human being, yet some question whether this man was truly God incarnate.  The amount of biblical testimony to this second claim is actually massive in detail.  On we go to that happy trail.

He is God

Here we will provide a sketch of the testimony of Scripture as to the deity of Jesus along five major lines. For those who desire more I refer you to a couple of clear recent works that cover the issues in some detail.¹⁰

#1 He is clearly called God and divine names are attributed to Jesus

First, Jesus is called theos the Greek word for God in many places in the New Testament (John 1:1, John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8, Titus 2:13, 1 John 5:20, 2 Peter 1:1). Second, he is called the Son of God in the gospels.  This is sometimes a misunderstood concept where many think this distinguishes Jesus from being God.  Philosopher Peter Kreeft makes the following observation that sheds light on how this title was understood.  Kreeft writes: Son of a dog, is a dog, son of an ape an ape, son of God, is God — Jews were Monotheistic, only one God—Son of God is the divine title of Jesus and everyone at his time understood this title to mean just that.⁹  Third, Jesus is called the Son of Man some 84 times in the gospels and is his most used title for himself. This title represents the perfection of humanity in the person of Jesus in contrast to the sinful nature of humanity in Adam.¹¹ It is also a direct reference to the divine figure in Daniel 7 of the Old Testament.  Jesus used this to describe both his first and second coming. About his first coming he said, the Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for people (Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28). As to his second coming, in direct reference to Daniel 7, he tells the high priest at his trial that the Son of Man will come again on the clouds of heaven.  At this he is accused of blasphemy because he had claimed to be God. See dialogue in Matthew 62-65. Finally, Jesus is called LORD, kurios, which is used for Yahweh in Greek translations of the Old Testament (Philippians 2:11, 1 Corinthians 2:8). 

# 2 Certain attributes of God are used to describe Jesus

There are certain characteristics about God that theologians calls his divine attributes. Some of these are directly predicated to Jesus as well.  Jesus is said to be unchanging (Hebrews 1:12, quoting Psalm 102:25-27, Hebrews 13:8) and all powerful (Philippians 3:20,21, Revelation 1:8) and eternal (Isaiah 9:6,7; Micah 5:2). 

# 3 Jesus does the works of God

Jesus is said to be the creator and providential sustainer of all  (Colossians 1:15-20, Hebrews 1:1-3). Furthermore, he is said to give eternal life and forgives sins that are against God (John 10:28, John 17:2, 1 John 2:25, Mark 2:5-12, Colossians 1:14, 3:13). Jesus’ miracles also confirm his power over nature, disease and death itself.

#4 He is worshipped as God by monotheistic people

The Scriptures are clear that the worship of anyone or anything is idolatry and the deepest of sins. Deuteronomy 6:13-15 teaches us that God’s people shall worship/fear only the Lord their God. Additionally, The Ten Commandments call us to worship only the God of the Bible and to reject idols and the worship of images (Exodus 20). Furthermore, the angels, various men and Jesus himself all understand that worship is exclusively for God (Angels in Revelation 19 and 22, Peter in Acts 10, Paul in Acts 14 and Jesus himself quotes Deuteronomy 6:13 to Satan during his own temptations in Matthew 4). So we find something amazing happening in the New Testament. Jesus is worshipped and he accepts worship without any hesitation at all (Matthew 2:11, John 9:35-39, Matthew 21:9-16, Luke 19.37-40 and Matthew 28:9,10, 17).  Even more amazing is that God the Father actually commands angels to worship Jesus (Hebrews 1:6) and Jesus will be clearly worshipped in Heaven (Revelation 5). 

#5 He directly claimed to be God

His own testimony is that he is the pre-existing great I AM of Exodus 3 (John 8:58), he is one in essence with the Father (John 10:30), he existed with the Father before the world began (John 17:5) and he claims to be the divine Christ (Matthew 26:63,64). His enemies wanted him killed for blasphemy because he, a mere man, was clearly claiming to be God.  

The Unique Glory of Jesus

The wonder of Jesus Christ isn’t that he was a great moral teacher. He was.  The wonder of Jesus Christ is not that he was kind, loving and compassionate to the poor. He was. The glory is found in that God became poor and one of us. He desires to walk with us, teach us and lead us. The glory is that Jesus is worthy of worship because as the unique Son of God he gave his life for us. Some might make him too exalted and far away—less human. Some might seek to bring him down from heaven and make him just a slob like one of us.¹¹ Dear friends, the path he gives us is much better.  He shares our humanity and lives with us by his Spirit as the divine, glorified and risen Savior. He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords—he shall reign forever and we shall worship him.  He is worthy of all that we are.

Notes

1. See discussion in Douglas Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and Philemon (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008) See introductory section on Colossians 1:15.

2. Christology is the theological discipline dedicated to the study of the person (who he is) and work (what he has done) of Jesus the Christ.

3. See Richard Baukham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006)

4. Matthew and John were among the twelve apostles.  Mark wrote down the apostle Peter’s account (see my introduction to Mark here http://www.powerofchange.org/storage/docs/nt_web_jw.pdf) and Luke was the traveling companion and missionary secretary of St. Paul.  Luke’s gospel, by its own prologue, was Luke’s job to pull together the Jesus story with some precision.

5. A simple, helpful book on all that schmack Darryl Bock, Breaking the Da Vinci Code (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2006).

6. Both the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition can readily be found online. Use the Bing or the Google and you’ll find these.  Or just go here—http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html

7. For a thorough treatment on creeds and there use in the Christian tradition, see Jaroslav Pelikan, Credo-Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). Good buy for the library.

8. For the continued Evangelical consensus on these issues see JI Packer and Thomas Oden, One Faith—The Evangelical Consensus (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2004) 71-75.

9. Geisler and Hoffman, Why I am a Christian, Part 5, Chapter 13—Peter Kreeft Why I believe Jesus is the Son of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001) 222-234. 

10. Donald Macleod, The Person of Christ, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1998) and Robert Bowman, J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place, The Case for the Deity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregal, 2007)

11. Ben Witherington III, “The Christology of Jesus Revisited” in Francis Beckwith, William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, To Everyone an Answer – The Case for the Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Intervarsity Press, 2004) 155

12. Lyrics by Eric Bazilian , One of Us, performed by Joan Osborne, 1995.

Staying in the arena

The following is a quote that perhaps many of you are familiar with. It is an excerpt from a speech given by the former president Theodore Roosevelt. It was given at the Sorbonne in Parish in 1910 during the years immediately after Roosevelt’s two terms as President (1901-1908). 

Though there is perhaps much to delight in and perhaps vehemently disagree with regarding Roosevelt and his views, his desire to be a doer and not merely a spectator or empty talker on the roads of life is commendable: 

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Theodore Roosevelt, The Man in the Arena, 1910. Available online at http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/trsorbonnespeech.html

For those who further interest in Theodore, by all means begin here.