Is a butterfly anti-caterpillar?
From the dawn of Christianity the Bible handles over and over how to understand the relationship of the Christian to the Law. Most of Romans, all of Galations, Acts chapter 15, and elsewhere, the New Testament writers are dedicated to explaining this issue. Yet, we still have many Christians to this day that are confused about it, and supposed teachers of the Law "..who understand neither what they say nor the things which they affirm" (1Tim 1:7) – like the unfortunately popular Joel Osteen explaining to us that we should not eat pork or shrimp because "...the Bible says." What incredible Biblical ignorance! I think of a brother and sister who (repeatedly) determined to eat no more shrimp believing that it displeased God, a whole denomination dedicated to the idea that we gentiles still have to observe the sabbath to have any hope, a brother who already wouldn't eat pork and who recently took to wearing a yamulke which is clearly contrary to 1 Cor 11, and a brother who took to dressing like an orthodox Jew and rocking back and forth in prayer like Jews at the Wailing Wall.
There is nothing in the world wrong with a caterpillar. God Himself created caterpillars. Caterpillars are striking, even beautiful creatures. Some of them are even powerful, which you will find out about firsthand if you pick up the wrong one. But a caterpillar is not a butterfly.
Butterflies are universally acknowledged as among God's most beautiful creatures. They are delicate and shimmering and colorful, and yet, some can fly distances of thousands of miles. A butterfly is a wonderful thing. The butterfly has been transformed beyond the caterpillar, it has ascended high above the caterpillar. The butterfly does not do the things of the caterpillar, but a butterfly is not anti-caterpillar by any means.
The practices and traditions of caterpillars are good and wholesome and given by God. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with the practices of the caterpillar. On the contrary, the things of the caterpillar are life to the caterpillar and soundness to his body, and by them the caterpillar shall live! Indeed, the butterflyiness of the butterfly rests upon the caterpillar.
But, the butterfly who tries to live by the things of the caterpillar shall die! The things of the caterpillar are left behind at the cocoon. The chewing of leaves, the climbing of trees, and the spinning of silk has no place in the life of the butterfly – and the butterfly who, having been transformed, goes back to the elementary principles of the caterpillar has fallen from the marvelous grace shown it at its transformation. Those things are good and proper to the caterpillar...but not to the butterfly.
The man under the Law is the caterpillar. But when Christ came, He put an end to the caterpillar things. When any man is renewed by the Spirit to faith in Christ he is transformed from the old caterpillar into a new butterfly. By the power of God in Christ he has ascended beyond caterpillars. He is not therefore to concern himself any longer with the things of caterpillars, but with the things of butterflies.
(As an aside, those who are under what we call Judaism have nothing for us at all. To the contrary, they, though descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, need to be instructed by us, the gentiles. It is in no way profitable to us to spend time learning, much less observing, traditions of Judaism which are not even from the Law, from God, but are traditions of men arising from 2000 years of rejecting Messiah. We don't need to learn those foolish and unbiblical things from them, they need to learn the things of God in the Bible from us. Abstaining from foods, observance of Chanukah, and wearing of yamulkes and talits is not going to bring you one inch closer to God – and stands a good chance of doing real damage.)
Brothers and sisters in Christ: We are, in Christ, through no virtue of our own, transformed into butterflies. Don't be turned aside to the chewings of leaves and climbings of trees.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Saturday, February 12, 2011
O Hand! I have no need of Thee!
This poem is dedicated to a brother in Christ, whose sincerity as a brother I do not doubt, but who carries about in the Body of Christ that affliction of mind which teaches that if God had anything to say to 'The Pastor' He would say it to him directly, and never through any member of the 'congregation'.
O Hand! I have no need of thee!
For being Eye do plainly see;
And know all things that come to light,
Whilst thou art lacking still of sight.
And like that low and humble Toe,
Which plodding through the mire dost go,
Thou art not elevated high,
With lofty visions as am Eye,
To see all things that are revealed;
These things from you are darkly sealed.
For how could you, by Fingers, know,
Instructing Feet which way to go?
Or looking up to brilliant sun,
Couldst say to Legs, "Tis time to run?"
Though deft, tis true, your Fingers be,
Yet not one color can they see;
And yet a rainbow of them fill
The vistas streaming past each hill;
While thou, poor sightless Hand, are dark,
To sun or moon or distant star.
These things from you are wisely veiled,
Nor pitch from blinding light can tell;
But pressed, perhaps, into the dirt,
Or grasping parts with sudden hurts,
You cannot see as Eye might do,
The red sunrise or morning dew.
Oh why wouldst thou expect to speak,
To Eye of what you'll never see?
What hope you harbor to inform,
Whose calluses are roughly worn?
With all that wondrous Eye can see,
Oh Hand! I have no need of thee!
O Hand! I have no need of thee!
For being Eye do plainly see;
And know all things that come to light,
Whilst thou art lacking still of sight.
And like that low and humble Toe,
Which plodding through the mire dost go,
Thou art not elevated high,
With lofty visions as am Eye,
To see all things that are revealed;
These things from you are darkly sealed.
For how could you, by Fingers, know,
Instructing Feet which way to go?
Or looking up to brilliant sun,
Couldst say to Legs, "Tis time to run?"
Though deft, tis true, your Fingers be,
Yet not one color can they see;
And yet a rainbow of them fill
The vistas streaming past each hill;
While thou, poor sightless Hand, are dark,
To sun or moon or distant star.
These things from you are wisely veiled,
Nor pitch from blinding light can tell;
But pressed, perhaps, into the dirt,
Or grasping parts with sudden hurts,
You cannot see as Eye might do,
The red sunrise or morning dew.
Oh why wouldst thou expect to speak,
To Eye of what you'll never see?
What hope you harbor to inform,
Whose calluses are roughly worn?
With all that wondrous Eye can see,
Oh Hand! I have no need of thee!
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Bible Correcting: Bishops and Churches I
Recently I came across an article by Cooper Abrams III asserting that the word 'ekklesia' ought not to have been translated 'church', but as 'assembly' or 'congregation'. My contention is that both 'assembly' and 'congregation' – though better than 'church' – are still poor choices to translate 'ekklesia' and that it would be easier to teach and spread 'ekklesia' itself than to infuse these other words with the ekklesia concept. After that I encountered a counter article by Will Kinney criticizing Abrams' assertions, defending the use of the words 'church' (as opposed to 'assembly' or 'congregation') and 'bishop' (as opposed to 'overseer') and making the case that the King James is right in all it says and does.
According to Kinney's article I guess I am a 'Bible Corrector'.
Just for the record I think the King James translators did a fine job and produced a good solid translation, but that is all they did. I in no way believe that the King James is The translation for all English speaking peoples, and further assert that those who carry this philosophy so far as to say that you must have the KJV to be saved are in grave error, to the point of heresy. (Not that either of these two men assert that to my knowledge.) A translation of the Word of God is not of itself the Word of God, but a translation of it. It is a work of men, though a good one, and subject to correction and better understanding. On the high side, these men were barely out of the Reformation and still had a very medieval/Catholic frame of reference regarding the Scriptures. On the low side, these men were appointed by James to perform this work primarily for political reasons, and were specifically restricted by James to established ecclesiastical terminology so as not to rock the completely unbiblical Church of England boat.
I understand why the idea of 'correcting' the Bible would make some sincere believers queasy, especially 'King James Only' believers. To this I simply say that I am not correcting The Bible, I am correcting Translations of the Bible. There is a difference, and it is an important difference. I fully believe that the Bible is our complete and inerrant guide to all matters of living, belief, and practice; individually and corporately. It was given by the Holy Spirit, and is not open to input or feedback from mere humans. Translations of the Bible are not so. They are translated by human beings and we need to take that into consideration when we read them and when we form and teach doctrine or practice from them.
Bishop
I'd like to start with the word 'bishop' simply because that is the easier case to make. Let me begin with what is really a minor point: Kinney going to have a hard time convincing people that 'bishopric' is "...not at all archaic" while using such a phrase as, "I trow not."
The word 'bishop' is a relic from a dark and bygone age when both the scriptures and the truths of scripture were brutally suppressed.
It is interesting and encouraging to me that Kinney correctly recognizes that 'elders', 'shepherds', and 'overseers' are all synonyms for the same biblical office, and that there are to be a plurality of them in each ekklesia – as opposed to a singular clergyman, i.e. 'The Pastor'. Since in Eph 4:11 Paul links the terms Shepherd-Teacher I further assert that many if not most of the references in the NT to 'teachers' are also using this term as a fourth synonym. Thus, in 1 Tim 2:12 (NKJV) "..and I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man..." Paul is in fact referring to elders, since elders are 'those who teach and exercise authority', and he then continues this line of thought in 3:1: i.e., "I do not permit a woman to be an elder ... however if a man desires the office of an overseer, he desires a good work." So we are in agreement on this point.
There are, however, real problems with the idea of using 'bishop' as a synonym for elder, particularly as the King James Translators did not intend it in this way.
• I agree that most translations have followed the lead of earlier translations by rendering 'episkopos' as 'bishop'. Prudence indeed dictates that we should take note of this fact and take care in our consideration of how to understand this subject. But the number of translations on this 'side' does not make it correct. Truth is not a popularity contest.
• From a strictly linguistic standpoint, 'overseer' is the preferable way to translate 'episkopos'. Kinney states, "...'bishop' is the more literal word [than 'overseer'] coming from the Greek New Testament and it means to watch over another." This is incorrect. 'Bishop' is not a translation of 'episkopos' at all, it is a transliteration, which is a very different thing. Clearly, 'overseer' is as literal a translation as you could possibly have for the word 'epi-skopos', and is much more informative to the reader than 'bishop'. The only reason to prefer 'bishop' in translation would be from some potential cultural or social consideration that outweighed mere translation.
• From a cultural/social standpoint, everything about the word 'bishop' mitigates against its usage in translation of the NT. The plain fact of the matter is that everybody knows that a 'bishop' is a high-falutin' guy with a funny hat like the Impressive Clergyman in The Princess Bride. This statement has a comical edge to be sure, and may seem as though I am merely in jest or making light of the question, but actually I am dead serious. We may live in an age where you can turn on the TV and see 'Bishop' Eddie Long, or 'Bishop' Clarence McClendon (neither of which do I recommend), but the plain, straightforward fact of the matter is that the King James Translators knew first-hand exactly what a real live bishop really was. You can try to fool yourself about the meaning and intent of the inclusion of this word in the King James Translation, but those translators lived in the days of real-life, funny hat wearin', unbiblical, persecuting-the-true-believers Bishops (some of the translators apparently went on to be bishops), and this was precisely what they knew by experience and had in mind and yet purposefully included in the King James Bible. You cannot get around that. They knew what a Bishop was, and that was how they chose to translate the word 'episkopos'.
• The usage of the term 'bishop' keeps the waters really muddy about true ekklesia life and government. It is hard to get the majority of Christians to remotely conceive of the idea that there is not supposed to be a 'The Pastor' at their 'church' – or even to conceive of why they should take the time to try to conceive of it. And when their Bible throws in inaccurate, dated, socially charged terms like 'bishop' for 'overseer', or 'Pastor' in Eph 4:11 when it should have said 'shepherd', you have to work all that much harder to get them to see through that churchy mindset. These harmful and unbiblical constructs have been at the center of the 'church' frame of reference for so long that it is quite difficult to get someone to seriously consider the idea that all of what they have known about 'churches' and Christianity all their lives is somehow in error and actually unbiblical. They think of these things as being specifically Biblical, because, after all, their Bible says 'Pastor', and it says 'Bishop'. There it is in black and white right before them.
I am not in agreement with everything that Cooper Abrams said in his article, but I am completely in agreement with his point that, "We can be sympathetic to their situation; but the fact remains that the King James Bible translators and the translators in modern times have had the opportunity to correct this error, yet they failed to do so and contributed to muddying the waters and sadly have upheld a misconception of what a biblical New Testament church should be as the Lord Jesus Christ instituted it." How ironic that Kinney should say that it is we who are trying to clarify these points that are muddying the waters!
It makes a difference! Even though I know and am fully settled in my mind that there is no 'The Pastor' Biblically, I tell you it was a hard won settlement and knowledge, as our house sought out answers to questions while we knew of no place to turn for answers but to the Word itself, and, when we found the answers, found them shrouded in misleading language. It makes a real difference if your Bible says, "..gave some to be pastors and teachers..' instead of 'shepherds and teachers', or better yet, 'shepherd-teachers'. To get over this translational hurdle it is crucial to know that the word behind 'pastors' is actually 'poimen' which is not 'pastor' but 'shepherd', was rendered in all other instances as 'shepherd', and was rendered 'pastor' only here – and without any linguistic justification at all. But it is not enough merely to know about it so that you can do mental gymnastics on the fly as you read, and the kicker is that there is no signpost in your Bible to alert readers to this fact. There is nothing to say, "Pay attention to this particular spot because there is an important issue lurking behind the language!" Without that signpost it can take a long time to stumble across the truth – if you stumble across it at all – as the condition of the 'church' plainly shows.
It should have been translated that way from the beginning. Since it hasn't, it needs to be 'corrected' now. It should have been corrected already.
The whole, entire purpose of a translation is so that people will be able to read and absorb the truths of scripture in their own language! Because it is a barrier to personal growth in Christ for the scriptures to be available only in Greek and Hebrew, men began to translate these truths into the native tongues, and many died for so doing but thought the price worth paying. However, if the translation is done in such a way that the translation itself remains a barrier to understanding, while seeming to have removed the barriers, then most of our brothers and sisters in Christ will never jump over them at all! They will be to them not a hurdle to jump over, but a rope to merely cordon them off and keep them moving in a limited and skewed direction, as it is in fact to this day. We have generations and continents filled with men and women who have named the name of Christ, but have walked in the darkness of churchy, clerical ignorance – working churchy, clerical works – all the while fully believing that this darkness is the light intended in the Bible.
The translators of the various translations have had every opportunity to clear this situation up, yet have refused to do so.
According to Kinney's article I guess I am a 'Bible Corrector'.
Just for the record I think the King James translators did a fine job and produced a good solid translation, but that is all they did. I in no way believe that the King James is The translation for all English speaking peoples, and further assert that those who carry this philosophy so far as to say that you must have the KJV to be saved are in grave error, to the point of heresy. (Not that either of these two men assert that to my knowledge.) A translation of the Word of God is not of itself the Word of God, but a translation of it. It is a work of men, though a good one, and subject to correction and better understanding. On the high side, these men were barely out of the Reformation and still had a very medieval/Catholic frame of reference regarding the Scriptures. On the low side, these men were appointed by James to perform this work primarily for political reasons, and were specifically restricted by James to established ecclesiastical terminology so as not to rock the completely unbiblical Church of England boat.
I understand why the idea of 'correcting' the Bible would make some sincere believers queasy, especially 'King James Only' believers. To this I simply say that I am not correcting The Bible, I am correcting Translations of the Bible. There is a difference, and it is an important difference. I fully believe that the Bible is our complete and inerrant guide to all matters of living, belief, and practice; individually and corporately. It was given by the Holy Spirit, and is not open to input or feedback from mere humans. Translations of the Bible are not so. They are translated by human beings and we need to take that into consideration when we read them and when we form and teach doctrine or practice from them.
Bishop
I'd like to start with the word 'bishop' simply because that is the easier case to make. Let me begin with what is really a minor point: Kinney going to have a hard time convincing people that 'bishopric' is "...not at all archaic" while using such a phrase as, "I trow not."
The word 'bishop' is a relic from a dark and bygone age when both the scriptures and the truths of scripture were brutally suppressed.
It is interesting and encouraging to me that Kinney correctly recognizes that 'elders', 'shepherds', and 'overseers' are all synonyms for the same biblical office, and that there are to be a plurality of them in each ekklesia – as opposed to a singular clergyman, i.e. 'The Pastor'. Since in Eph 4:11 Paul links the terms Shepherd-Teacher I further assert that many if not most of the references in the NT to 'teachers' are also using this term as a fourth synonym. Thus, in 1 Tim 2:12 (NKJV) "..and I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man..." Paul is in fact referring to elders, since elders are 'those who teach and exercise authority', and he then continues this line of thought in 3:1: i.e., "I do not permit a woman to be an elder ... however if a man desires the office of an overseer, he desires a good work." So we are in agreement on this point.
There are, however, real problems with the idea of using 'bishop' as a synonym for elder, particularly as the King James Translators did not intend it in this way.
• I agree that most translations have followed the lead of earlier translations by rendering 'episkopos' as 'bishop'. Prudence indeed dictates that we should take note of this fact and take care in our consideration of how to understand this subject. But the number of translations on this 'side' does not make it correct. Truth is not a popularity contest.
• From a strictly linguistic standpoint, 'overseer' is the preferable way to translate 'episkopos'. Kinney states, "...'bishop' is the more literal word [than 'overseer'] coming from the Greek New Testament and it means to watch over another." This is incorrect. 'Bishop' is not a translation of 'episkopos' at all, it is a transliteration, which is a very different thing. Clearly, 'overseer' is as literal a translation as you could possibly have for the word 'epi-skopos', and is much more informative to the reader than 'bishop'. The only reason to prefer 'bishop' in translation would be from some potential cultural or social consideration that outweighed mere translation.
• From a cultural/social standpoint, everything about the word 'bishop' mitigates against its usage in translation of the NT. The plain fact of the matter is that everybody knows that a 'bishop' is a high-falutin' guy with a funny hat like the Impressive Clergyman in The Princess Bride. This statement has a comical edge to be sure, and may seem as though I am merely in jest or making light of the question, but actually I am dead serious. We may live in an age where you can turn on the TV and see 'Bishop' Eddie Long, or 'Bishop' Clarence McClendon (neither of which do I recommend), but the plain, straightforward fact of the matter is that the King James Translators knew first-hand exactly what a real live bishop really was. You can try to fool yourself about the meaning and intent of the inclusion of this word in the King James Translation, but those translators lived in the days of real-life, funny hat wearin', unbiblical, persecuting-the-true-believers Bishops (some of the translators apparently went on to be bishops), and this was precisely what they knew by experience and had in mind and yet purposefully included in the King James Bible. You cannot get around that. They knew what a Bishop was, and that was how they chose to translate the word 'episkopos'.
• The usage of the term 'bishop' keeps the waters really muddy about true ekklesia life and government. It is hard to get the majority of Christians to remotely conceive of the idea that there is not supposed to be a 'The Pastor' at their 'church' – or even to conceive of why they should take the time to try to conceive of it. And when their Bible throws in inaccurate, dated, socially charged terms like 'bishop' for 'overseer', or 'Pastor' in Eph 4:11 when it should have said 'shepherd', you have to work all that much harder to get them to see through that churchy mindset. These harmful and unbiblical constructs have been at the center of the 'church' frame of reference for so long that it is quite difficult to get someone to seriously consider the idea that all of what they have known about 'churches' and Christianity all their lives is somehow in error and actually unbiblical. They think of these things as being specifically Biblical, because, after all, their Bible says 'Pastor', and it says 'Bishop'. There it is in black and white right before them.
I am not in agreement with everything that Cooper Abrams said in his article, but I am completely in agreement with his point that, "We can be sympathetic to their situation; but the fact remains that the King James Bible translators and the translators in modern times have had the opportunity to correct this error, yet they failed to do so and contributed to muddying the waters and sadly have upheld a misconception of what a biblical New Testament church should be as the Lord Jesus Christ instituted it." How ironic that Kinney should say that it is we who are trying to clarify these points that are muddying the waters!
It makes a difference! Even though I know and am fully settled in my mind that there is no 'The Pastor' Biblically, I tell you it was a hard won settlement and knowledge, as our house sought out answers to questions while we knew of no place to turn for answers but to the Word itself, and, when we found the answers, found them shrouded in misleading language. It makes a real difference if your Bible says, "..gave some to be pastors and teachers..' instead of 'shepherds and teachers', or better yet, 'shepherd-teachers'. To get over this translational hurdle it is crucial to know that the word behind 'pastors' is actually 'poimen' which is not 'pastor' but 'shepherd', was rendered in all other instances as 'shepherd', and was rendered 'pastor' only here – and without any linguistic justification at all. But it is not enough merely to know about it so that you can do mental gymnastics on the fly as you read, and the kicker is that there is no signpost in your Bible to alert readers to this fact. There is nothing to say, "Pay attention to this particular spot because there is an important issue lurking behind the language!" Without that signpost it can take a long time to stumble across the truth – if you stumble across it at all – as the condition of the 'church' plainly shows.
It should have been translated that way from the beginning. Since it hasn't, it needs to be 'corrected' now. It should have been corrected already.
The whole, entire purpose of a translation is so that people will be able to read and absorb the truths of scripture in their own language! Because it is a barrier to personal growth in Christ for the scriptures to be available only in Greek and Hebrew, men began to translate these truths into the native tongues, and many died for so doing but thought the price worth paying. However, if the translation is done in such a way that the translation itself remains a barrier to understanding, while seeming to have removed the barriers, then most of our brothers and sisters in Christ will never jump over them at all! They will be to them not a hurdle to jump over, but a rope to merely cordon them off and keep them moving in a limited and skewed direction, as it is in fact to this day. We have generations and continents filled with men and women who have named the name of Christ, but have walked in the darkness of churchy, clerical ignorance – working churchy, clerical works – all the while fully believing that this darkness is the light intended in the Bible.
The translators of the various translations have had every opportunity to clear this situation up, yet have refused to do so.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Uncle Tom's Carbine
As a rule I take a rather dim view of fictional literature. I wouldn't go so far as to say that reading fiction is inherently sinful or anything (that, for instance, would be a legitimate example of legalism) but just that it is usually a waste of time at best. I myself once was a prodigious reader of fiction – reading Prof. Tolkien's Hobbit and Lord of the Rings at least once a year – and many other fictional books besides. Sometime around age 21 or 22 (about eight years before God came) I realized that a person only has just so much time on the earth, and just so many waking hours, and all the time I was devoting to reading fiction I could be actually learning something.
Unfortunately, most works of fiction – being the imaginations of sinful humans – don't really make it too far up the 'at best' scale.
Which brings us to my second objection to fiction: It is all too easy for the author to work everything out in his itty bitty imaginary world to suit his own fleshly desires without having to deal with the truths of reality. Characters can make all sorts of godless, immoral, unwise decisions and have everything just 'work out'. It's like having an imaginary argument with someone in which you trounce their every point, show them the speciousness of their position, and win the argument hands down. You make your point and leave them speechless: Huzzah! Unfortunately, when you go to argue with the actual person reality comes into play and they turn out not to be an easily manipulated figment, but a real person; they say things – and may do things – you hadn't counted on.
It just doesn't turn out quite like you had imagined.
Well that is unpleasant enough (speaking from experience), but if the person in question turns out to be, say, the All-powerful Creator of Heaven and Earth whom you have snubbed all your life, telling yourself and everyone who asks that you'll be OK and you don't really need to commit your life to His Son, and who is now infinitely offended by your willful rejection of the only possible solution for your filthy sins, which you are smeared and stained and reeking with, and realize shaking uncontrollably before His thundering blazing wrath that lays every single fact about your life absolutely naked – like that dream where you showed up for school in your underwear, only 10,000 times 10,000 times worse – that your shuckin' and jivin' just ain't gonna get it, and the jaws of Hell are now opening underneath you...
Well that is the reality of which I said that writers of fiction so easily ignore it.
One exception I have made is the reading of Uncle Tom's Cabin.
A copy of that book surfaced in our home and the kids asked permission to read it. I generally discourage the children from fiction for all the reasons above – without regard to anybody's list of so-called "classics" – but in the case of this request I gave it greater consideration specifically because I knew that Uncle Tom's Cabin was a fictional work that had an actual, real, and notable impact on history. That puts it in a rather different category. So I agreed to read it first and then let the kids, if I found no real objectionable material.
Going into the book, here is what I knew about it.
• It was written by Harriet Beecher Stowe as a work of anti-slavery propaganda, which she herself considered to have been given to her from God; that it enjoyed great popularity, and directly contributed to the coming of the American Civil War.
• When President Lincoln later met Stowe he said, "So you're the little lady who started this big war."
• Conservative blacks – such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – are often ridiculed by not so conservative blacks as 'Uncle Toms'.
I never had any particular desire to read Uncle Tom's Cabin. To me, it was just that little book written by that little woman, and I really never thought too much about it. Strangely, although we were taught in the public schools that it played an important role in the events leading up to the Civil War, it was not among the list of 'classics' that we were required to read. I certainly never saw anyone reading it in school.
Having now read it, I know why.
If you have never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, you need to.
Not one day, but today. I was completely – completely – unprepared for how moving and how powerful the book actually is. More importantly, I was completely unprepared for how unabashedly evangelical the book is: both in the sense of coming from an 'evangelical protestant' perspective, and also as being written with evangelism closely tied into the purposes of the book.
The most difficult thing about reading it is Stowe's literary impersonation of the various dialects involved in the story. This was supposedly the first major work ever to attempt such a thing, and it is at first a bit hard to understand. I wasn't sure at first if I was supposed to be attaching a British or Upper-crust Southern, or Southern White-Trash accent to it or what. Take it in stride and you will get used to it.
The other thing I didn't expect was the portrayal of Uncle Tom as a Christ-figure. Laying down his life in his service to Jesus, he definitely shares in His sufferings and 'fills up in his body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ', as Paul said. It is difficult to comment on that sufficiently without giving the story away. It should be obvious though just how offensive such a portrayal would have been to white southerners in those days, who had by then adopted the evil and unbiblical philosophy that blacks were much less than whites, even less than human. To then portray a black slave as a direct reflection of Jesus – whom they (supposedly) worshiped as deity – what an affront that would have been!
The thing that really got me though, that really puzzled me, was the wide gulf between the impression I had previously acquired about Uncle Tom, and the reality of the character.
For years I had heard blacks disparaging politically conservative blacks as 'Uncle Toms': i.e., "...you' a ol' Uncle Tom handkerchief-head!" The impression I had from years of hearing Uncle Tom referred to by both blacks and whites was one of spineless debasement, of mean and weaselly self-subjugation, of cravenly fawning over the white man and playing up to him like a dog whimpering and licking at his master's feet hoping that just a bone might be thrown to him – the very opposite of anything approaching manhood and dignity. Some sort of black-minstrel-play character shuckin' and grinnin' and playin' it up for de massa.
Not only was my impression wrong, but it was so wrong it left me confounded. I wondered how on earth anyone could possibly look at Uncle Tom that way, could possibly see in 'Uncle Tom' an insult? How could anyone remotely portray him in such a light? The actual Uncle Tom character, though perhaps intellectually stunted, was a physical and spiritual giant; a man, who, solely because of conscience toward God (1 Peter 2:19) endures undue hardship and unjust suffering. A man who, reviled, does not revile in return, but forthrightly gives the best that he has to give, as genuinely unto God. A man who takes the lonely path of Christ and looks to Him in everything he goes through, who could at many moments have struck down his captors, but prays for them instead, and yet does not shrink back from telling his masters plainly of their need for Christ and the hopelessness of their sinful condition. A man who, though betrayed, bereft, and beaten, keeps his eyes firmly fixed on eternal reality with manly determination and incredible inner strength. A man who, whether presented with white villainy or black victimism tells all about their need for Christ and exhorts all to turns from their sins and put their trust in the Cross. A whole and complete man who recognizes that a white sister-in-Christ is more his family than any black sinner. A man's man who, in true hero fashion, in steadfastness of mind, slowly gets the 'better' of his opponents in life when they come to find that he truly is their better, or are struck by God for their bitter impenitence.
Who on earth could possibly despise the Uncle Tom of Uncle Tom's Cabin?
This question had me really baffled until I realized that all the things that made Uncle Tom the hero, all the things which he had gotten from a lifetime of serving the King of Kings, all the things which were the very strengths and all our hope in Jesus, are precisely the very things that make Jesus the 'stumbling stone and the rock of offense' that was laid in Zion. The worldliness and the fleshliness of man does not want a hero that suffers with strength, and in patience lays it all before God. The natural man does not want a Messiah that allows Himself to be beaten and torn to expose our own sinfulness and our own need for redemption when with one word He could have blasted his tormentors into sub-atomic particles. The heart of man does not want a redeemer who would allow Himself to be nailed to a cross when He could be raising armies to ride in glorious battle against the unjust Roman occupiers.
The heart of man does not want an Uncle Tom's Cabin; it wants Uncle Tom's Carbine. It wants to see Uncle Tom in armed revolt, takin' one in the shoulder, but gritting his teeth and mowin' 'em down in the process. It wants to see him leading a band a grim-faced hardened stoics gettin' back at their oppressor and not caring about whether their enemy winds up in hell. We don't want a hero who looks past his own suffering to see the eternal destiny of his tormentors. We want a hero who blows 'em to hell without misgiving, gets the girl, and rides off to forge his own destiny in true movie fashion.
Coming this summer to a theater near you: Uncle Tom's Carbine!
Well... I do have some good news for those of you who can't wait to see justice meted out: In God's plan, you actually get both movies. In God's plan, in the first show, you get the safe and snuggly baby in a manger. Then, after the interlude and a chance to go to the bathroom and get you a Coke®, comes the next feature: Messiah Triumphant! Riding at the head of the Armies of Heaven He treads out the winepress of His wrath and stains all His clothes crimson with the blood that is spilled in vengeance around the world. More perilous than anything your eyes will ever behold, the Prince of Life also becomes the avenger of all injustice and unrighteousness in a way that makes a Molly Hatchet album cover look like school-girls playing cats-cradle. The Violence and Gore are so out of hand that they have to invent not just a new movie rating, but a whole new rating system, just to begin to convey the truth of the situation.
The Suffering Servant of Psalm 22 becomes the Glorious Son of David in Psalm 110, and "fills the places with dead bodies."
Umm, however... you might want to take a good look at the book of Malachi first, starting in chapter 2 and verse17. " 'Behold, He is coming,' say the LORD of Hosts, 'But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears?' " Do you think you can? "He will be like a refiner's fire.." He will completely melt down and burn up everything and everyone who comes before Him, including you! It's what we've always longed for, God says, but it's not going to be like you think because your sins have to be included in it too!
Uh-Oh!
This is why we have an Uncle Tom Messiah first. Uncle Tom's Carbine is still in production and will be along directly.
Meanwhile, you'd better get in line for tickets now, before they close the ticket-booth.
Unfortunately, most works of fiction – being the imaginations of sinful humans – don't really make it too far up the 'at best' scale.
Which brings us to my second objection to fiction: It is all too easy for the author to work everything out in his itty bitty imaginary world to suit his own fleshly desires without having to deal with the truths of reality. Characters can make all sorts of godless, immoral, unwise decisions and have everything just 'work out'. It's like having an imaginary argument with someone in which you trounce their every point, show them the speciousness of their position, and win the argument hands down. You make your point and leave them speechless: Huzzah! Unfortunately, when you go to argue with the actual person reality comes into play and they turn out not to be an easily manipulated figment, but a real person; they say things – and may do things – you hadn't counted on.
It just doesn't turn out quite like you had imagined.
Well that is unpleasant enough (speaking from experience), but if the person in question turns out to be, say, the All-powerful Creator of Heaven and Earth whom you have snubbed all your life, telling yourself and everyone who asks that you'll be OK and you don't really need to commit your life to His Son, and who is now infinitely offended by your willful rejection of the only possible solution for your filthy sins, which you are smeared and stained and reeking with, and realize shaking uncontrollably before His thundering blazing wrath that lays every single fact about your life absolutely naked – like that dream where you showed up for school in your underwear, only 10,000 times 10,000 times worse – that your shuckin' and jivin' just ain't gonna get it, and the jaws of Hell are now opening underneath you...
Well that is the reality of which I said that writers of fiction so easily ignore it.
One exception I have made is the reading of Uncle Tom's Cabin.
A copy of that book surfaced in our home and the kids asked permission to read it. I generally discourage the children from fiction for all the reasons above – without regard to anybody's list of so-called "classics" – but in the case of this request I gave it greater consideration specifically because I knew that Uncle Tom's Cabin was a fictional work that had an actual, real, and notable impact on history. That puts it in a rather different category. So I agreed to read it first and then let the kids, if I found no real objectionable material.
Going into the book, here is what I knew about it.
• It was written by Harriet Beecher Stowe as a work of anti-slavery propaganda, which she herself considered to have been given to her from God; that it enjoyed great popularity, and directly contributed to the coming of the American Civil War.
• When President Lincoln later met Stowe he said, "So you're the little lady who started this big war."
• Conservative blacks – such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – are often ridiculed by not so conservative blacks as 'Uncle Toms'.
I never had any particular desire to read Uncle Tom's Cabin. To me, it was just that little book written by that little woman, and I really never thought too much about it. Strangely, although we were taught in the public schools that it played an important role in the events leading up to the Civil War, it was not among the list of 'classics' that we were required to read. I certainly never saw anyone reading it in school.
Having now read it, I know why.
If you have never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, you need to.
Not one day, but today. I was completely – completely – unprepared for how moving and how powerful the book actually is. More importantly, I was completely unprepared for how unabashedly evangelical the book is: both in the sense of coming from an 'evangelical protestant' perspective, and also as being written with evangelism closely tied into the purposes of the book.
The most difficult thing about reading it is Stowe's literary impersonation of the various dialects involved in the story. This was supposedly the first major work ever to attempt such a thing, and it is at first a bit hard to understand. I wasn't sure at first if I was supposed to be attaching a British or Upper-crust Southern, or Southern White-Trash accent to it or what. Take it in stride and you will get used to it.
The other thing I didn't expect was the portrayal of Uncle Tom as a Christ-figure. Laying down his life in his service to Jesus, he definitely shares in His sufferings and 'fills up in his body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ', as Paul said. It is difficult to comment on that sufficiently without giving the story away. It should be obvious though just how offensive such a portrayal would have been to white southerners in those days, who had by then adopted the evil and unbiblical philosophy that blacks were much less than whites, even less than human. To then portray a black slave as a direct reflection of Jesus – whom they (supposedly) worshiped as deity – what an affront that would have been!
The thing that really got me though, that really puzzled me, was the wide gulf between the impression I had previously acquired about Uncle Tom, and the reality of the character.
For years I had heard blacks disparaging politically conservative blacks as 'Uncle Toms': i.e., "...you' a ol' Uncle Tom handkerchief-head!" The impression I had from years of hearing Uncle Tom referred to by both blacks and whites was one of spineless debasement, of mean and weaselly self-subjugation, of cravenly fawning over the white man and playing up to him like a dog whimpering and licking at his master's feet hoping that just a bone might be thrown to him – the very opposite of anything approaching manhood and dignity. Some sort of black-minstrel-play character shuckin' and grinnin' and playin' it up for de massa.
Not only was my impression wrong, but it was so wrong it left me confounded. I wondered how on earth anyone could possibly look at Uncle Tom that way, could possibly see in 'Uncle Tom' an insult? How could anyone remotely portray him in such a light? The actual Uncle Tom character, though perhaps intellectually stunted, was a physical and spiritual giant; a man, who, solely because of conscience toward God (1 Peter 2:19) endures undue hardship and unjust suffering. A man who, reviled, does not revile in return, but forthrightly gives the best that he has to give, as genuinely unto God. A man who takes the lonely path of Christ and looks to Him in everything he goes through, who could at many moments have struck down his captors, but prays for them instead, and yet does not shrink back from telling his masters plainly of their need for Christ and the hopelessness of their sinful condition. A man who, though betrayed, bereft, and beaten, keeps his eyes firmly fixed on eternal reality with manly determination and incredible inner strength. A man who, whether presented with white villainy or black victimism tells all about their need for Christ and exhorts all to turns from their sins and put their trust in the Cross. A whole and complete man who recognizes that a white sister-in-Christ is more his family than any black sinner. A man's man who, in true hero fashion, in steadfastness of mind, slowly gets the 'better' of his opponents in life when they come to find that he truly is their better, or are struck by God for their bitter impenitence.
Who on earth could possibly despise the Uncle Tom of Uncle Tom's Cabin?
This question had me really baffled until I realized that all the things that made Uncle Tom the hero, all the things which he had gotten from a lifetime of serving the King of Kings, all the things which were the very strengths and all our hope in Jesus, are precisely the very things that make Jesus the 'stumbling stone and the rock of offense' that was laid in Zion. The worldliness and the fleshliness of man does not want a hero that suffers with strength, and in patience lays it all before God. The natural man does not want a Messiah that allows Himself to be beaten and torn to expose our own sinfulness and our own need for redemption when with one word He could have blasted his tormentors into sub-atomic particles. The heart of man does not want a redeemer who would allow Himself to be nailed to a cross when He could be raising armies to ride in glorious battle against the unjust Roman occupiers.
The heart of man does not want an Uncle Tom's Cabin; it wants Uncle Tom's Carbine. It wants to see Uncle Tom in armed revolt, takin' one in the shoulder, but gritting his teeth and mowin' 'em down in the process. It wants to see him leading a band a grim-faced hardened stoics gettin' back at their oppressor and not caring about whether their enemy winds up in hell. We don't want a hero who looks past his own suffering to see the eternal destiny of his tormentors. We want a hero who blows 'em to hell without misgiving, gets the girl, and rides off to forge his own destiny in true movie fashion.
Coming this summer to a theater near you: Uncle Tom's Carbine!
Well... I do have some good news for those of you who can't wait to see justice meted out: In God's plan, you actually get both movies. In God's plan, in the first show, you get the safe and snuggly baby in a manger. Then, after the interlude and a chance to go to the bathroom and get you a Coke®, comes the next feature: Messiah Triumphant! Riding at the head of the Armies of Heaven He treads out the winepress of His wrath and stains all His clothes crimson with the blood that is spilled in vengeance around the world. More perilous than anything your eyes will ever behold, the Prince of Life also becomes the avenger of all injustice and unrighteousness in a way that makes a Molly Hatchet album cover look like school-girls playing cats-cradle. The Violence and Gore are so out of hand that they have to invent not just a new movie rating, but a whole new rating system, just to begin to convey the truth of the situation.
The Suffering Servant of Psalm 22 becomes the Glorious Son of David in Psalm 110, and "fills the places with dead bodies."
Umm, however... you might want to take a good look at the book of Malachi first, starting in chapter 2 and verse17. " 'Behold, He is coming,' say the LORD of Hosts, 'But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears?' " Do you think you can? "He will be like a refiner's fire.." He will completely melt down and burn up everything and everyone who comes before Him, including you! It's what we've always longed for, God says, but it's not going to be like you think because your sins have to be included in it too!
Uh-Oh!
This is why we have an Uncle Tom Messiah first. Uncle Tom's Carbine is still in production and will be along directly.
Meanwhile, you'd better get in line for tickets now, before they close the ticket-booth.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)