JULY 24, 1651: ANTHONY JOHNSON AND THE NCM THEORY OF HISTORY

 Monday, July 24, 1651, dawned to the residents of this planet promising to be yet another normal day in their lives, as well as normal could be. Three centuries and 72 years later, Monday, July 24, 2023, dawned to the residents of this planet promising to be yet another normal day, as well as normal could be. Nevertheless, our normality on both dates was strangely altered by one Anthony Johnson.

But first, let’s examine what happened in 2023. Florida’s educational authorities had adopted new state standards for teaching slavery to their students in middle school. Vice President Harris then came to Florida to passionately decry those standards as being racist because of a single reference that slavery did have a minor positive role in teaching the slaves valuable skills even though all other slavery references in the standards cast the institution as horrific and inhumane. And then on Monday, the 24^th. the chorus of progressive media voices began damning the standards on the same key of outrage.

There are several ironies here. First, Harris probably did not read all the standards. Indeed, one of her political handlers essentially admitting the fact when he defended her by saying she was speaking from her heart, not from her head. Second, Harris in a debate preceding the 2016 presidential election passionately attacked the eventual winner for racist attitudes but gleefully accepted the candidacy for the number two office from the same man she had denounced in the debate, Third, most progressives and too many conservatives for that matter do not have a sense of history. Or they or their advisors would have known about Anthony Johnson. Thank goodness that the researchers for my “This Day in History” calendar knew about Johnson.

On Monday, July 24, 1651, Anthony Johnson became one of the first Black landowners in America, my calendar reported to me. So, 32 years after the first import of slaves to Virginia and hence to all the American colonies, a Black man could own property in a colony with slaves.  (So, another nail in the coffin of the false premise of the 1619 Project!) But Johnson’s story gets richer.

The records are sketchy but according to the calendar and a Wikipedia entry, Johnson was living in Portuguese Angola where he was captured by slavers and found his way to England where he learned English. He then became an indentured servant in the Virginia colony. Once his contract expired, Johnson was granted his freedom and was granted more than 200 acres of land. He and his wife Mary then had their own slaves (my emphasis). Eventually Johnson and his household moved to the Eastern Shore on Virginia’s portion of the Delmarva Peninsula and then on to Maryland to avoid the pressures of increased slave ownership and legal questions. The Johnson family tree becomes obscure at this point, but some scholars speculate that descendants of Anthony and Mary migrated to Delaware and North Carolina.

Anthony Johnson and his life is but one reason why I ascribe to the NCM Theory of history- that history is nuanced, contradictory, and messy. And as such, I highly recommend to progressives and to conservatives alike to stop “weaponizing” history for their own narrow political agendas.  As my long passed mentor Edmund Burke famously stated, “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”

THE FREE AND CONDITIONAL GIFT OF SALVATION

 In my retirement years I continue my quest as a life-long leaner. While I do not need nor do I desire another academic degree, I do create self-learning projects, write essays for my blog, maintain a stronger focus in my readings, view selected YouTube videos, and even requested and received a post-doctoral fellowship in creative leadership at a nearby seminary. Much of my learning efforts in this regard have centered on New Testament studies and the philosophy of history (including historical imagination).

In my theological readings I have gravitated towards Scot McKnight and N.T, Wright. Through them I discovered a theological school of thought called the New Perspective on Paul (NPP)/. If I understand NPP correctly it is an attempt to put Second Temple Judaism in its rightful place, not as a proverbial “straw man” or punching bag, but as a strong vibrant faith which lacked one essential element according to Paul- the recognition and acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as the long-expected Messiah.

According to NPP both Second Temple Judaism and Paul’s Mission to the Gentiles were essentially congruent on the vertical axis of faith. For Jews they merely had to recognize that they were born into a covenantal relationship with God and that they were a “cut above” those outside the covenant, using McKnight’s humor in reference to male circumcision.  Gentiles, in contrast, had to accept the divine invitation to enter into the conventual relationship and thus join the Jews who indeed accepted Jesus as the Messiah as the first Christians.

It  is on the horizontal axis of faith that the real problems emerge according to NPP.  How does one stay in fellowship with others within the conventual faith? This is where Second Temple Jews part company with the Christians and even cause problems between the Gentile believers and the  “Jews for Jesus.”  I believe that it was this rift that caused the creation of the Judaziers who was a problem for the Pauline Mission to the Gentiles.

Second Temple Jews and many Jewish Christians were aghast that Gentile Christians did not keep Sabbath, adhere to Kosher, or practice male circumcision. Together with their problem with the Messiahship of Jesus, these practices (or lack thereof) were the final straws (pun intended- see above) for Second Temple Jews.  Henceforth, they viewed Christians as the enemy of the biblical faith and  eventually caused the Gentile Mission to engulf nearly the entire Church. Even the remaining Jews for Jesus had problems relating with Gentile believers even as their numbers and influence waned in the coming decades.

I have found NPP to be a useful tool in my enlarged understanding of the New Testament, especially in the power relationships present in Paul’s Letter to the Romans between the Strong (Gentile Christians) and the Weak (Jewish Christians). Nevertheless, any theological school of thought, even NPP,  has its critics and I wanted to find those persons and listen to their “voices.” I found such a voice, albeit in an unlikely source. And this where the story gets exciting.

John M.G. Barclay is, like both McKnight and Wright, an Anglican and a New Testament scholar but that is where their triad similarities end,  While McKnight is an American, Barclay is a Brit like Wright. But unlike Wright who is also a Church of England bishop, Barclay has spent the entirety of his career in academia where he is currently the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity at Durham University in northeast England. Ironically, Barclay’s predecessor as Lightfoot Professor was James Dunn, a founder of NPP and the doctoral supervisor of McKnight.

And unlike McKnight who has a deep loud voice and Wright who talks fast, Barclay speaks in quiet measured tomes that could put a listener asleep. Thus, Barclay seems an unlikely opponent of NPP who has publicly debated Weight several times regarding Paul,, but without  rancor and hostility as reported by one commentator. If I interpret Barclay correctly his chief criticism of NPP is over the nature of grace or gift, which he thinks NPP neglects.

Barclay’s Paul and the Gift was considered by many critics to be a groundbreaking volume on Paul’s theology as it pertains to gift and grace, and how gifts functioned in ancient societies. His next volume, Paul and the Power of Grace, summarized the first book and added some application for Christian communities today. It is not my purpose here to review Barclay’s scholarship. Suffice to say is that while salvation is God’s free gift to us, given unconditionally, the gift of salvation is conditional in that it necessitates a reciprocal ethical response to God with our righteous living. Barclay offers his readers a sample illustrative of such living-

·       The forgiven are expected to forgive (Matthew 6:12)

·       The fig tree is expected to bear fruit (Luke 13:6-9)

·       The disciples are called to serve (Mark 10:41-45)

·       The wealthy are expected to give (Luke 19:1-10)

·       The loved are commanded to love (John 13:34-35)

No cheap grace here neither for all Christ followers in general nor for Barclay personally. He as a prominent theologian would be welcomed in any congregation. And yet, he deliberately chooses to worship regularly in a church composed of poor and marginalized folks, many with disabilities and some who are homeless.

I am a simple man and therefore, I propose a simple solution- let’s fuse together the New Perspective on Paul with Barclay’s Gift Perspective to create a powerful tool to interpret the New Testament and live our lives worthy of God’s gift of salvation.

SEARCHING FOR THAT ELLUSIVE MORAL ARC

 

The search for the Holy Grail was sketched into medieval minds and even into the twentieth century as popularized by the fictional adventurist Indiana Jones. Now American progressives, in particular, are searching for the so-called “Moral Arc of the Universe” in order to seize the popular imagination to promote their agenda.

Progressives are fond of declaring. “The Arc of the Moral Universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”  Let’s examine the development of the concept. It was first used by Theodore Parker in a sermon delivered in 1853-

“I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one. My eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by experience of sight. I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.”

Parker, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, was a Unitarian minister, reformer, abolitionist, and transcendentalist. As such, Parker was not an orthodox Christian in that he rejected the historic doctrines of the Trinity, inerrancy of the inspiration of the Scriptures, and original sin. Thus, I can rightfully speculate that Parker utilized the concept in a general spiritual way with humans capable of eventually obtaining full justice.

Apparently, the moral arc concept was not again for more than a century. In 1965 at the Alabama state capitol in Montgomery at the conclusion of the march from Selma Dr. Martin Luther Kong, Jr. proclaimed in a sermon the following-

“Evil may so shape events that Caesar will occupy a palace and Christ a cross, “but that same Christ will rise up and split history into A.D. and B.C., so that even the life of Caesar must be dated by his name. Yes, ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’”

King reimages Parker’s original concept into a battle between Good (Christ) and Evil (Caesar) with God’s justice having the final say. King uses the concept at least one more time in a speech entitled “Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution:” delivered at the National Cathedral in 1968.

The Moral Arc concept was ratified into the pithy statement we know it as today by President Osama-

“The Arc of the Moral Universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”

 

Later Obama tweaked it slightly in words but major in substance-

 “It bends because we bend it. Because we put our hand on that arc and we move it in the direction of justice.”

Although Obama credits King for the expression and values it so highly that he had it sewn into an Oval Office rug, even Michael Wear, one of the president’s faith advisors, feels Obama lifted it out of context-  “It’s very clear that, apart from Jesus Christ, the idea of a moral arc of the universe was inconceivable to King. It only made sense within the context of a declarative faith statement.”

President Obama’s oratorical skill masks a deficiency in content in this regard, particularly theological content, But Obama’s error is not possessed by him alone. It is an “error of the commons” especially on the acreage populated by progressives and even some conservatives. Like elections, theological errors have consequences:

·       The quest for the Moral Arc is ultimately not a human endeavor. It is God’s; more specifically. It belongs to Jesus Christ, as attested to by Dr. King. Yet, there is right and wrong in our world, and as humans we are called to care for the widows and orphans, sojourners and strangers, and the poor and marginalized in our communities, making a gospel difference in the lives of folks around us.

·       Apart from biblical standards, the quest for the Moral Arc is ambiguous. The quest can and will be defined with different goals and means for different people, usually those with the power to impose their wills on the powerless.

·       The quest can lead to moral smugness and even hubris on the part of those who are eternally convinced of the rightness of their actions. Humility, prudence, and caution are thrown to the wind, so to speak. The voices of those who oppose or who merely differ in their approach are silenced and these folks are often labeled with slanderous and libelous adjectives to ostracize them of the so-called “beloved community.”

Over the past several centuries there were three great upheavals or revolutions of human endeavor- the American, the French, and the Russian. Only the American Revolution survives while the French and Russian Revolutions failed. Why? Despite the idealism expressed in our Declaration of Independence, our Revolution was grounded in humility and promised no utopia that was offered to the French and Russian people. From the early revolutionary battles through the Articles of Confederation to the Federal Constitution, onto the Civil War some “four score” and more years later, and to the Civil Rights Movement a century further in time our Revolution knew the reality of fallible humans and the need for self-correction.

In conclusion, we hear again the voice of Dr. King. In August 1963 on a hot muggy day typical of the summer season in Washington DC, Dr King took the podium on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to deliver his speech at the end of the March on Washington to advocate for full civil rights to all Americans. He electrified the crowd with his “I Have A Dream” speech. The section on the “content of their character and not on the color of their skin” has perhaps become a trite expression and will be except for the rich biblical imagery imbedded in throughout the speech reminding us once again that God is in control of our destiny and thus the Moral Arc bends towards justice- God’s justice- because of divine intent and not because we put our puny hands on it.

GEOGRAPHICAL MORALITY AND THE CONSTITUTION

Edmund Burke is a historical hero of mine. Born in Ireland, he was raised Protestant and after graduating from Trinity College Dublin Burke moved to London where he traveled in literary and political circles. Eventually he was elected to Parliament and also became a renowed political theorist. Believing in the power of history, tradition, and precedent to guide one’s actions, Burke was a cautious reformer, yet he supported American grievances in the colonies as fighting for the rights of all Englishmen (but not the actual revolution), advocated for equal rights for Catholics, and detested government corruption.

Recently, as I was reading a book on British colonial history, I came across a new term for me- geographical morality- which the author claimed is associated with Burke. So, I researched the term further and found that geographical morality is indeed Burkean but not exclusively his. Nevertheless, Burke used geographical morality in two related ways.

The first use of geographical mortality for Burke was in his harsh, but right, criticism of the French Revolution. Burke believed that the foundation of any nation or society rested in traditions, customs, and institutions developed throughout its history and are expressed in its moral and political values. Thus, he found the radical and abstract reforms occurring in France to be repulsive which he expressed in his book Reflections on the Revolution in France. Burke understood the difference between the American grievances and the French actions as Americans were protesting what they considered deviations from historical rights while the French were engaging in societal upheaval by completely jettisoning their long-established political and moral foundation.

For Burke, geographical morality shifts from abstract political theory to a concrete manifestation of the term. The specific case here is the impeachment trial of Warren Hastings for corruption. Hastings was a chief agent for the East India Company, chartered by Parliament as an early version of a public-private partnership, which governed most of contemporary India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar in the name of the British Crown. In such an arrangement, Hastings was Governor General of Bengal.

Burke as the chief prosecutor against Hastings during the trial accused Hastings of cultural relativism in that he conspired to “…to have formed a plan of geographical morality, by which the duties of men, in public and private situations, are not to be governed by their relation to the great Governor of the Universe, or by their relation to mankind, but by climates…latitudes; as if, when you crossed the equinoctial, all the virtues die…by which they unbaptize themselves of all that they had learned in Europe…This geographical morality we do protest against…”

Burke further added, “…that the laws of morality are the same everywhere, and that there is no action which would pass for an act of extortion, of peculation, of bribery, and of oppression in England, that is not an act of extortion, of peculation, of bribery, and oppression in Europe, Asia, Africa, and all the world over…”

To counter the claims by many that Burke’s argument was some case of Western imperialist thought, Matthew Stephenson of Harvard Law School counters, “Now, there is of course some truth to the claim that the meaning of corruption varies across times and places, but I’ve always thought the claim that corruption is a modern Western notion, with minimal applicability, to developing/non-Western societies, was both factually inaccurate and hinged with a bit of cultural condescension masquerading as cultural sensitivity”

Although Hastings was acquitted of all charges, Burke’s wisdom on avoiding geographical morality in the 18^th century is applicable not only to contemporary colonial and imperial administrators but only to business executives, missionaries, and NGO leaders. There is yet another area of application of Burke’s wisdom on this matter.

As I began my research on geographical morality, I immediately thought of a concept I learned from my American history textbook in Afton (OK) High School (yes, high school!) and have since found nowhere else. That concept is posed in the form of a question- “Does the Constitution follow the Flag?” And it deals with the dilemma posed by American expansionism beyond our continental borders with new territories such as Guam, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, the Philippines, and American Samoa and whether constitutional rights and protections such as the Bill of Rights automatically applies to those inhabitants or must these rights and protections be explicitly granted to them by the Congress.

While most of the debate has focused on territories acquired during the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries, I also now believe through the influence of my long passed mentor Edmund Burke the Constitution should also follow the Flag in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq when they are occupied by US forces such as they were in the early 21^st century.

With no formal declaration of war, the issues can become quite complex. But not so complex we cannot do the right thing by jettisoning the concept of geographical morality rightly hated by Burke and others centuries ago and extend constitutional rights and protections to folks through no fault of their own find themselves under American control, even only temporarily. We cannot repeat our failures from the waterboarding of Filipinos in the early 1900s to the humiliations suffered at the Abu Ghraib Prison in the early 2000s.

JULY 4, 1863: OUR SECOND INDEPENDENCE DAY!

 When one thinks of July 1863 thoughts usually focus on the Battle of Gettysburg. What’s not to “like” about that battle- three days from July 1-3 filled with action, drama, and heroics on both Federal and Confederate soldiers. Our minds are filled with passed on memories of Buford’s Stand, the Peach Orchard, Little Round Top, and Pickett’s Charge. The battle really entered the popular imagination through Michael Shana’s historical novel The Killer Angels and the resultant movie Gettysburg.

But as much we desire to romanticize about the battle and that it was the turning point of the Civil War in the Union’s favor, that distinction falls instead on Vicksburg, a Confederate stronghold, which surrendered to the Federal forces on the very day, July 4- the 87^th anniversary of our official founding as a nation. What happened in that Mississippi city coupled with the timing makes the Fourth of July 1863 our second Independence Day.

The victory at Vicksburg was so special for the Federal Union because it was a strategic triumph of paramount importance. Vicksburg was the last link between the Southern Confederacy in the east and in the west. By seizing the city Federal forces split off Texas, Arkansas, and part of Louisiana from the other rebel states and permitted the United States Navy free navigation up and down the Mississippi River.

So, why doesn’t Vicksburg occupy a higher place in American mythology? While Gettysburg was a single battle at a single place, over a period of three days, Vicksburg was a campaign of maneuver with eleven distinct battles in a time frame of about 27 weeks from December 1962 through July 4, 1863. Try putting that action into a single movie! Vicksburg was a much more complex operation than Gettysburg that involved-

o   Logistical operations over a large territory

o   Joint operations between the Federal Army and Navy

o   Siege operations against the city itself

o   Civilians within Vicksburg targeted with starvation

o   Time frame allowed Federal commanders to learn from mistakes

The Vicksburg Campaign was a precursor to total modern warfare that Gettysburg was not. Although General Meade, the Federal commander at Gettysburg, technically won the battle, President Lincoln though it was a shallow victory because the Federal army did not pursue the Confederate army and destroy it. Lincoln would look west to find the general to finally lead the Union army to triumph and crush the Southern rebellion. That general would be Grant, the Federal commander at Vicksburg.

Thus, July 4, 1863, deserves to be considered our Second Independence Day1

 

 

 

 

JUSTICE FOR WHOM?

 

The recent Supreme Court decision to ban race-based affirmative action for college admissions raises some fundamental questions on the role of government, particularly the federal government, in promoting justice in our nation. And often, active government efforts in promoting justice have unintended consequences.

Affirmative action was established in the 1960s to “temporarily” assist African Americans to overcome the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow so that they could succeed in the American Dream. In particular, affirmative action focused on employment and educational opportunities. But in the course of the past six decades affirmative action has been twisted into a permanent solution for a problem that really does not exist.

I must now stake my claim that I have always found slavery and Jim Crow abhorrent. From the times in the 1950s and 1960s I saw “Whites Only” signs on restroom doors in Texas and on television watched the Birmingham police use dogs on Black children and the governors of Mississippi and Alabama attempt to stop the integration of their flagship university campuses, I have felt racism has no place in American life.

And yet we now have professional race baiters claiming that racism is everywhere in America, diseasing the very fabric of our common identity and institutions. Proponents of the 1619 Project, for example, claim that our roots lie not in the “Spirit of 1776” but in 1619 when African slaves were first brought to the nascent Virginia colony and indeed our American Revolution was founded primarily to defend slavery against the abolitionist British Empire.

It is a basic misreading and misunderstanding of the historical record even to suggest such nonsense. Yes, slaves were brought to Virginia in 1619 but also the House of Burgesses met for the first time in 1619 giving Virginia the first hint of colonial self-rule which propelled them to believe they were ready for national self-rule a century and a half later. And the Empire did not think clearly about abolition until William Wilberforce and his allies began their crusade in 1790s to first cease the slave trade and then ban slavery altogether about three decades later.

Then we are subjected to the false notion that that our local and state polices forces are regularly and systematically “executing” African Americans. When ordinary Americans are questioned about the numbers, their guesses usually range from one thousand and on up. The correct numbers are about two dozen annually and the numbers have held steady across the years. And most of the two dozen or so mostly Black men shot and killed by police have been armed or thought to be armed beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, there are rogue or untrained police officers who shoot and kill civilians of all races. Unfortunately, these officers are usually identified beforehand by their own colleagues and are not reported either due to fear of professional and personal repercussions or are protected by powerful police unions. These officers must dealt with immediately before they harm innocent people.

Another aspect of this false notion is that everyone could be a victim of police malfeasance. Several years ago, a young woman in Missouri on her way to work was shot and killed by a deputy sheriff who claimed she had a weapon; no weapon was found on her person or in her vehicle. Then in Kansas a young man with known mental issues was shot and killed by police when he attempted to flee his home in a speeding vehicle. The national media did not focus on their unnecessary deaths because both were White and thus, they did not fit the narrative of mass executions of African Americans.

Then we have some local and state governments, and many federal officials, seriously investigating financial reparations to African Americans as payment for the effects of slavery and Jim Crow. I have written an earlier essay published in my blog why I oppose reparations and will not recount the evidence here. Nevertheless, I believe there will be four “massives” associated with reparations-

1.     Massive government intrusion into birth, family. and medical records

2.     Massive shift of wealth to one group of Americans for a generation or two

3.     Massive graft, fraud, and corruption

4.     Massive number of lawsuits in our court systems

And now we return to the question of affirmative action. It has had several unintended consequences. First, as previously stated, it is a “solution” for a problem that does not exist. No living African American today has suffered from slavery and relatively few from Jim Crow. As a matter of fact, it can be legitimately claimed that since a federal  government report on the status of the “Negro” family written by a then obscure Under Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the quality of life for many African Americans has deteriorated even with well-intended government assistance.

Second, it dismisses the original desired opportunities for unrealistic outcomes. All fair Americans want equal opportunities for success for everyone in our nation- it is part of our common mythology, even not fully realized. But to demand equity of outcomes- whether talented or not, whether it was worked for or not, whether deserved or not- is impractical, cannot be implemented, and will not be embraced by most Americans, including I suspect the majority of Blacks.

Third, affirmative actions ignores the lessons of personal struggle and hard work. In their book The Triple Package, authors Amy Chua and Jed Rubenfeld identify three traits that explain the success of cultural groups in America-

·       Superiority- a deep-seated belief in their own exceptionality

·       Insecurity- do not pursue self-esteem as a desired goal

·       Impulse control- ability to avoid instant gratification for greater purpose

In addition, personal hard work results in three actions that must be accomplished in order- graduate from high school, get married, and have children.

Fourth, affirmative action invertedly plays into the pathologies plaguing many African Americans. John McWhorter in his book Losing the Race describes three cults of self-sabotage among Black Americans- victimology, separatism, and anti-intellectualism.

Fifth and finally, affirmative action pits one racial group against the others. Affirmative action is for African Americans so in effect affirmative action is government quotas and other actions for this group over Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans. The latter group was behind the lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court for its decision. The case involved admissions policies at Harvard which discriminated against highly qualified Asian American students over lesser qualified African American students. The Court ruled for the plaintiffs- the Asian Americans.

The split among racial groups in America is now being made by progressive voices supporting affirmative action. Jemele Hill, writer for The Atlantic, is one example. She accuses Asian Americans of “carrying water” for White supremacy. Former President Barack Obama claims the Court decisions destroys hope among young African Americans. My hunch is that progressives will continue to support affirmative action because of demographics. Hispanic Americans comprise about 19 percent of the population. Despite the immigration and border controversies they are trending conservative so progressives must look elsewhere for support. African Americans are about 12 percent of the population which is more than the Asian American portion at about 7 percent.

Coupled with the history of long past slavery and ever distant Jim Crow the almost double African American percentage over Asian Americans means the progressives will cling to affirmative action despite the fact that its demise is past due and it’s time to move on to a color blind United States. The duty of government is to establish basic protections to provide justice for all Americans and not be in the business of choosing winners and losers.

  

MY OWN RESPONSE TO MY GUEST COLUMN ON "HOW THE SOUTHERN BAPTISTS LEFT ME"

 [The letter below is my own response to my guest column in Baptist News Global on Southern Baptists and women pastors, also published on this blog. Unfortunately, due to a lack of space, my response could not be published.]

On June 19, my guest column “The Southern Baptists Left Me” was published. Now, I am taking perhaps the unusual step by responding to my own essay. No, I have not changed my mind and no, I have not received any pressure to repent of my position. On the contrary, I have only support from my two friends and colleagues with whom I shared an earlier draft and also from reader.  In “My Own Response” I would like to further reflect upon ordination for women and offer any preemptive clarifications to my first essay.

First, how appropriate my essay was published on June 19- Juneteenth. As a historian of sorts I find this to be cool (using the proper academic slang). If a reader is not aware of the connection I am making, I will  him/her to do the research.

Second, I have watched several YouTube videos on the subject at hand and all have been critical of Saddleback and Rick Warren. Several commentators seem delighted at the outcome, almost to the point of seeming to be jealous of Warren’s success and sneering at his change of mind regarding women’s pastoral ordination.

The best critical video I viewed was one by Gavin Ortlund, an American Baptist pastor in California. Ortlund is a self-described “gentle complementarian” who did describe fairly  both sides of the debate and countered misconceptions some folks on one side may have against the folks on the other side. The major misconceptions, according to Ortlund are not all egalitarians are liberal and not all complementarians are power-tripping women abusers. Fair enough.

Third, I have really only personally known three female pastors. One is a super person who was a colleague on a church staff and one I still consider a friend. The other was what I can describe at the time I associated with seemed to be self-conscious, lacked self-esteem in her ministry skills, and was intellectually dishonest. The third was a seminary classmate who won the best preaching award and went on to pastor in another denomination/ Two out of three- even with my small sampling I bet that those numbers generally relate to your experiences with male pastors.

Fourth, if one really takes seriously Paul’s prohibition against women having authority over men, how does one really takes seriously Paul’s command for women to keep their heads covered? After all, both teachings are rooted in the order of creation. Then, how does one view the fact that female seminary and college professors have authority over male students by holding them accountable to their courses through attendance, tests, and grades? If SBC churches are required to hold to their “no women pastors, no women deacons” position, should not SBC seminaries and colleges offer their support by not permitting women professors to teach men?

Fifth, almost two decades ago an essay entitled “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity” was published. Its author was Al Mohler. In this seminal essay Dr. Mohler reported that a trip to a local hospital ER alerted him to connect medical triage to theological triage. He stated, “A discipline of theological triage would require Christians to determine a scale of theological urgency that would correspond to the medical world’s framework for medical priority.’ Accordingly, Mohler establishes three different levels of theological urgency-

o   First-level theological issues include the Trinity, justification by faith, the authority of scriptures, and the full deity and humanity of Jesus Christ. These doctrines are essential to our Christian faith and are worth fighting for.

o   Second-level theological issues include the meaning and mode of baptism and women serving as pastors. These doctrines are either/or in congregations and denominations.

o   Third-level theological issues include the timing and sequence of eschatology and the interpretation of difficult texts. Disagreements over these issues should preclude fellowship even within congregation.

I have two brief comments on Dr. Mohler’s triage typology. While I recognize the doctrinal issues he includes as descriptors of the triage levels are illustrative and not exhaustive, I wonder where on which level he would include God’s numerous commands for us to care for foreigners, sojourners, orphans, widows, the poor, and needy which are not included in his essay? And, considering that in my view that the texts on women are indeed difficult, notwithstanding Paul’s prohibition in 1 Timothy, then this should be  a third-level issue, and should therefore be resolved in each congregation such as Saddleback or Fern Creek rather than by a vote in an annual denominational meeting.

Indepth, Spirit-filled interpretation of our Scriptures and review of our doctrines accordingly are never easy. Our Navy SEALS have it right in, “The only easy day is yesterday>”

 

LETTER TO A PASSIONATE RESPONDER

 [The letter below is my reply to a stranger who responded to my letter to the Boston University alumni magazine "Bostonia" in which I satirized BU President Brown's use of the term "the right side of history."]

July 2, 2023

Dear Passionate Responder,

Thank you for your response to my BU letter. While I am disappointed you dropped the “F-bomb” and used the default Nazi rhetoric, I will attempt to reply to your concerns regarding the ideas expressed in my letter.

I was not attacking the BU position on fossil fuel divestiture; I was critiquing President Brown’s smugness on using that old worn out expression on “the right side of history.” My criticism was written as satire but the condensed version published did not seem satirical at all so I can see how I may be misunderstood.

For me the “right side of history” rhetoric is moral smugness. The language is used by both traditionalists and progressives to advance their causes. And if the cause ultimately “wins out” our confirmation bias kicks in and with an arrogant shrug of the shoulders we announce, “Of course, it was indeed the moral and right thing to do.” And in many situations, it was indeed the right thing to do. Nevertheless, our “victories” can lead to hubris and a lack of humility, just the opposite of the situation described by David Brooks in the first chapter of his book The Road to Character.

Our historical hubris can lead to a sense of no limitations on our part, a lack of prudence in misguided attempts to manipulate and engineer history in a scientific way for our own selfish purposes, however noble. And our hubris can lead us to demean and dehumanize those who hold opposing positions. For example, on the basis of a short and edited letter you associate me with Nazis, racists, homophobia, anti-vaccers, ignorance, ideocracy  and immorality. Whew! {And I thought we could be friends!)

So, you think you know me? Did you check my LinkedIn profile? I wish to introduce myself at the risk of you justifying to yourself that I “protest too much” and am therefore guilty of all charges. Briefly, I am a(n)

o   Christ-follower since 1969

o   Husband since 1971

o   Father of two adult children

o   Grandfather to four children

o   Great grandson of a farmer

o   Grandson of a tavern owner and shipbuilder

o   Son of a carpenter and construction worker

o   Admirer of Edmund Burke, Peter Drucker, Lisa Kennedy Montgomery, William Wilberforce, Caroline Cox, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Winston Churchill, George Marshall, Margaret Thatcher, and Barry Goldwater

o   Political independent

o   Social conservative

o   Limited government libertarian

o   Retired elementary school principal

o   Theologian

o   Historian

o   Active blogger at https://jmarlow750.blogspot.com/

o   Oklahoma Sooners fan

o   Like to eat/drink Rocky Road Ice Cream and Diet Dr, Pepper

o   And finally, I subscribe to the NCM Theory of history-  history is nuanced, contradictorily, and messy

And I would like to know more about you before I make assumptions based upon one rude and condescending letter.

In the meantime, I ask you to consider who was on the right side of history in the following situations and request your commentary:

·       The US assassinating Japanese Admiral Yamamoto in April 1943?

·       The US exiting from Afghanistan in August 2021?

·       The lesser native tribes joining Cortes in assisting him in conquering the Aztecs?

·       Theodore Roosevelt entering the 1912 election thus giving Woodrow Wilson the presidency?

·       Soviet POWs being sent back to the USSR at the end of World War ll?

·       The loss of hundreds of Royal Navy sailors and marines to tropical diseases in the effort to stop the global slave trade?

 

Take care--JM