REQUIEM FOR MY FATHER--A LAST LETTER

(My father passed away yesterday on Nov. 29th after 92 years of life. Thank you for your prayers, especially for my mother who was married to him for nearly 60 years) BW III

Dear Dad:

There are so many things you meant to me over so many years, and the sign I saw today said it all-- "I have a super hero in my life, and its my Dad". I realize you've gone to be with the Lord, but I also know that you are more alive now than when I last saw you Saturday laboring for breath in Mercy hospital. Thank God you are in a place where there is no more sufffering, sin, and sorrow, no more disease, decay and death. Here is the obituary I helped write for you:

Mr. Witherington of Charlotte died peacefully on Saturday November 29th, 2008 at Carolinas Medical Center-Mercy. He was the son of the late Ben Witherington, Sr. and Mildred Patrick Witherington and was born on May 31, 1916 in Goldsboro, N.C. He was preceded in death by his sister, Mildred Witherington Grotland.

Ben's father's death and military service in WWII interrupted his college career at UNC-CH. Having joined the Army Air Corps, he completed advanced training at the Army Finance School at Wake Forest College. After serving several Army finance offices, he was transferred into the infantry and sent to Germany where he was assigned to the 94th Division of Patton's Third Army. He received a Combat Infantry Badge and two battle stars. Between 1947-86 he worked as a credit manager and an accountant in various firms including Tomlinson's Furniture Company and Factors Inc. in High Point N.C. and then NCNB (now Bank of America) in Charlotte.

A loyal life long member of the Methodist Church, he served in many ways at St. Paul's UMC Goldsboro, West Market Street UMC Greensboro, Wesley Memorial UMC in High Point, and Myers Park UMC in Charlotte. He was on the Administrative Board, President of Owenby Sunday School Class, and was a UMYF sponsor. An Eagle Scout, he inspired both his son and his grandson to achieve the rank of Eagle Scout as well.
After WWII Ben returned to UNC-Chapel Hill where he earned a B.S. degree in Commerce with an accounting major. An ardent Carolina sports fan and an athlete, he ran track and was a cheerleader at Carolina. He also enjoyed playing tennis and golf, and was an avid watcher of Carolina football and basketball.

Ben is survived by his wife of almost 60 years, Joyce, his daughter Laura of Jacksonville Fla., his son Ben, III and his wife Ann of Lexington, Kentucky and their children Christy Ann of Morrisville N.C. and David Benjamin of Silver Spring, Md. He is also survived by his brother M. Patrick Witherington and his wife Patty and many nephews and nieces.

The funeral will be held at 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 2, at Myers Park United Methodist Church. The family will receive friends following the service in Jubilee Hall. Interment will be at 2:00 p.m. Thursday, December 4, in Oakdale Cemetery in Wilmington, NC. Pallbearers will be Don Redding, Lou Bledsoe, Patrick Witherington, J. A. West, David Witherington, and Rick Witherington. Honorary pallbearers will be the members of the Owenby Class.

In lieu of flowers, memorials may be sent to Myers Park United Methodist Church Jubilee Plus Fund, 1501 Queens Road West, Charlotte, NC 28207, Grace United Methodist Church, 401 Grace Street, Wilmington, N.C. 28402, or the Tuscarora Council, Boy Scouts of America, 316 East Walnut Street, Goldsboro N.C. 27530.
'Blessed are those who die in the Lord'.

Arrangements are in the care of Hankins & Whittington Funeral Service, 1111 East Blvd. Online at www.hankinsandwhittington.com.
---------

Dad, there are so many things I will miss. I woke up this morning and realized this is the first time in my life I don't have a father on earth. You were always there for me... always. Such a self-sacrificial person, and so gentle and loving like Jesus. If I ever grow up fully, I hope to be more like you. I remember all those ball games you took me to, especially Carolina games, and all those church services we went to. I remember you teaching Sunday school and helping lead my scout troop until I managed to get my Eagle award. You were never too busy for me. I remember all those fun trips to the beach, and so many wonderful holidays. Do you remember the day our cat Yellowball climbed the Christmas tree at night when all were sleeping and broke our bubble lights? Or how about the day I went off to Carolina just like you, and when you left me there, I felt so alone and lost. Do you remember the day we went to Spruce Pine and I taught Adults Plus the Gospel of Mark, and all your Sunday school friends were there? Or how about those hot summer days at Annual Conference at Lake Junaluska? Or the time you took me on your business trip to Morehead City? I miss all the times you read to me those Henry Ware stories when I was small, and how you taught me to drive on that old 55 Chevy that was column shift? I will never forget the day you took me downtown in High Point to get the conscientious objector papers during the Vietnam war, and even though you totally disagreed, you respected my choice and were right there with me? So many memories come flooding back. Most of all I will miss all that love and Christian nurture you gave me over all those years.

I know your not gone, nor are you lost, as I know right where to find you, up there with Jesus, but still it will be hard not to see you again until the resurrection. I just wanted you to know that in your honor on Nov. 29th those ole Tar Heels won their annual grudge match with Duke 28-20 at Duke and are going to a bowl game, and it won't be the toilet bowl. At least you won't need to yell at those ACC refs in the sky over that one. Here's a big hug, one more time.... ( ). You can count on me to go on serving the Lord, and being faithful to Him, to my church, to my family, to our Tar Heels. As you used to sing as a cheerleader "I'm a Tar Heel born and a Tar Heel bred, and the day I die, I'm a Tar Heel dead....so its ra ra Carolina, 'lina..."

Love,

Your Son

SHOULD WE REDEFINE MARRIAGE?

Now that we know that Barack Obama will indeed be our next President, it is useful to go back and watch once more what President elect Obama said to Rick Warren at the Civil Forum last summer at Saddleback Church. This particular post will discuss the issue of gay marriage in light of what was said at the Forum. You will find his particular comments about marriage beginning 20 minutes and about 30 seconds into the interview. They are: 1) he defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman; 2)he supports civil unions for gays and lesbians, though he will not personally be advocating or promoting their lifestyle and 3) he is not for a constitutional amendment defining marriage in a particular way because the Constitution did not comment on this matter originally, and it has been left to the States to decide this kind of issue. In his view, it should stay that way.




The vote over Proposition 8 in California is now over but the battle is by no means done. My friend Rev. Jim Garlow in California continues to get lots of hate mail and his church has been picketed vigorously, and yes there have been threats against him of various sorts. This is hardly what one would call proper human behavior.

What should Christians think of that whole matter of Prop. 8? Is it an example of Christians depriving gays and lesbians of their civil rights? Well it can hardly be that since gay or lesbian civil unions are already legal in California, and indeed the partners in such a relationship already have the rights of marital partners in the event of illness and the like.

No, fighting against Proposition 8 was not about gaining the civil right for gays to have a legally sanctioned union, one that allowed one to have the various tax, work, and health benefits of such a relationship. They already had that in California. What it was about was an attempt to redefine marriage, nothing less than that.

When President elect Obama was asked about this matter at Rick Warren’s civil forum some months ago, he said that marriage, according to the Bible is a relationship between a man and a woman, but in his view gays and lesbians should still be able to have civil unions. Of course this is already the law in California so he was not proposing anything new or different to what already existed in California, nor did the passage of Proposition 8 change that state affairs.

What may have changed was the status of those gays and lesbians who were not satisfied with a civil union and wanted to be able to legally claim they were married. Time will tell whether the passage of Prop. 8 will nullify those gay and lesbian marriages which had already been performed and sanctioned. It is interesting that the African American vote in California was overwhelmingly in favor of Prop. 8 (some 70% of African-Americans who voted), and so one would not expect President elect Obama, for whom over 90% of all African Americans voted, to reverse course by executive order on January 21rst when he is in the Oval Office and try and overturn Proposition 8 and similar laws which were passed in Florida and elsewhere. We shall see, but I would not expect such an attempted reversal of things in light of his previous comments about States rights in this matter.

What should Christians think of this matter? Well, in the first place not only is marriage defined in the Bible as an act between a man and a woman, it is said that God initiated such an act in the first place. God brought the man and the woman together (read Gen. 1-2). The result of that marriage was a 'one flesh union', something which, if we understand it and exegete the phrase properly, is not possible for two men or two women to have with each other. Male and female were created in such a way that they, and they alone, can produce a one flesh union. This is not to say that other sorts of sexual activity could not create bonds of intimacy between two persons. This of course is the nature of intimate sharing in sex. The point is that these other sorts of unions are not what the Bible means by a 'one flesh union' (see e.g. Ephes. 5.21ff.).

The result of a proper marriage is not merely that the two become one, but that one of them, the male, becomes a husband and the other the female becomes a wife. It is no more possible for a female to become a husband than it is possible to have a female uncle or a male aunt (I'm am talking here about the issue of identity, not roles that one or another person might be able to play in some fashion).

Biology is indeed pre-determining things in these cases, and even when you have a person who has a sex change operation, such as the so-called pregnant man recently on TV, actually this person is a woman genetically, and in terms of having a womb and the like. She has simply had her breasts removed and taken testosterone to try and remove the evidence and reality that she is a woman.

In any normal set of circumstances gender is not something you choose, it is something you are born with, and what follows from that is certain gender role possibilities come along with that, and certain other ones are ruled out. Of course many people are not satisfied with the way they are born, and think they ought to have choices about such matters. What you mainly have choices about is behavior however, not gender, barring resorting to radical medical actions. It should also be stressed that we are all born fallen creatures as well, so it is not sufficient to argue that "it must be of God as I was born this way". Even if it is true(though I know of no scientific evidence demonstrating this) that some people are born with same sex inclinations, this in itself would not make it 'of God'. Frankly there are too many birth defects with which humans can be born, including the moral one we all have as fallen creatures, and so one could never say with any universal theological validity "since I was born this way, this is how God intended me to be and it must be celebrated as good." This is not by any means always the case.

The question one should ask about the marriage issue is--- should the Biblical definition, and indeed Western cultures definition of marriage for the last thousand plus years be allowed to be overturned by a small minority of American citizens and their friends? Even simply at the level of pure democracy, this is unreasonable in a country where the majority should rule in such civil matters.

A further point should be made. It is not hate to uphold a traditional view or definition of marriage, and our culture and country is not helped by hate-crimes laws that include things like how one defines marriage as hate speech. Discourse on such subjects, though it may well be passionate, should not resort to name-calling, ad hominem arguments, or pure polemics. Equally sincere persons can have diametrically opposed views on this subject, and still be friends.

I have various friends who disagree with my views on this subject, but they are not about to accuse me of hate. They know that this is a matter of Christian conscience for me, and they respect that. This is the way it ought to be in general. This matter should not be dealt with by hate mail, hateful acts, death threats or any other kind of not only unChristian behavior but not even proper human or humane behavior.

Going forward on this volatile issue I would urge conservative Christians who are adamantly opposed to the gay lobby in our country to remember the following: 1) some gays and lesbians are your brothers and sisters in Christ, however confused you may think they are on this ethical matter. Treat them as such; 2) the church should be welcoming to all persons as they are to come to church, just as Jesus was welcoming of all, without condoning anyone's sin or baptizing and calling it non-sin. That is 'we should be welcoming of any sinner but not affirming of any sinful lifestyle or action. Loving the sinner but not their sin may be a hard dichotomy at times but it is what we are called to; 3) Jesus died for us all, whether gay or straight to save us from our sins; 4) the unforgivable sin in the Bible is not some particular sexual sin, but rather apostasy, the willful rejection of Christ in one's life; 5) homophobia and heterophobia are both sins which one should repent of.

BW3

John Piper explains Why Calvinists are so Negative

Here is a very interesting and indeed revealing brief interview with John Piper about why Calvinists not infrequently come across in such a negative and arrogant way. I find his explanation in some ways convincing.

What he does not add, that could have been added, is that, for whatever reason, Calvinism seems to feed a deep seated need in many persons for a kind of intellectual certainty about why the world is as it is, and what God is exactly like, and how his will is worked out in the world, and most particularly how salvation works and whether or not one is a saved person.

And all too often, the apparent intellectual coherency of a theological system is taken as absolute and compelling proof that this view of God, salvation,the world must be true and all others be heresy, to one degree or another. But it is perfectly possible to argue logically and coherency in a hermeneutical or theological circle with all parts connected, and unfortunately be dead wrong-- because one drew the circle much too small and left out all the inconvenient contrary evidence. This sort of fault is inevitable with theological systems constructed by finite human beings.

A minutes reflection will show that intellectual coherency, as judged by finite fallen or even redeemed minds, is not a very good guide to what is true. The truth of God and even of the Bible is much larger than anyone's ability (or any collection of human being's abilities) to get their mental calipers so firmly around it that one could form it into a 'coherent theological system' without flaws, gaps, or lacunae. That includes Calvin's very fine mind as reflected in his Theological Institutes. The real paradox about the God of Calvin is while Calvin does all in his power to stress the enormity and consequent sovereignty of a great God over all things, sadly but inevitably even his God is too small to encompass everything that is said about God in the Scriptures, even just everything that is said about soteriology in the Scriptures.


While I certainly believe that God's own worldview is coherent, and that some of it is revealed in the Bible, the facts are that the Bible does not reveal everything we always wanted to know about God so we could be certain God exists and form that body of knowledge into a self-sustaining fully coherent theological system with one idea leading to another idea, and so on (and now we can all sing a chorus of 'Will the Circle be Unbroken').

A strong sense of assurance provided by the living presence of God in the person of the Holy Spirit in our lives is not the same as intellectual certainty. Nor does God reveal so much about the eternal mysteries that a finite human mind could form it into an airtight theological system of any kind. Indeed, the Bible is pretty clear that God quite deliberately did not 'tell all' either in general revelation in creation or in the Scriptures(read Job), not least because God wants us to trust him and to build a trust relationship with him. What God has done is that God has revealed enough so that we may be redeemed but not so much that we do not have to trust God about the future.

I must confess that as a NT scholar I am inherently suspicious about theological systems like Calvinism or Dispensationalism or even Arminianism and the like which seem to foster certain kinds of feelings of intellectual certainty and even smugness about things that are in fact profound mysteries.

When someone brings up a topic like "why is their evil in the world, and why do even God's people suffer so much" rather than give a pat answer I am more apt to repeat the words of John Muir who said words to the following effect-- "We look at life from the back side of the tapestry. And most of the time what we see is loose threads, tangled knots and the like. But occasionally God's light shines through the tapestry and we get a glimpse of the larger design with God weaving together the darks and lights of existence."

I must tell you that whenever I have had a profound experience of God through reading his word or encountering God in worship or community, it tends to just humble me, and make me want to say something like what Joni Mitchell said about love--- "its love's illusions I recall, I really don't know love, at all". I have barely touched the hem of the Master's garment, I hardly know him though I long to know him better. In the face of the divine-human encounter, even Barth's Dogmatics appear to be little more than a good start to understanding God.

Please understand that I am not suggesting that we should not think logically and coherently about our faith, and do our best to connect the dots. Nevertheless, we should be placing our faith in God, not in a particular theological system. There is a difference. In the former case the faith is largely placed in whom we know and whom we have encountered. In the latter case the faith can be too often placed in what we believe we know about God and theological truth.

I always want to ask the 'theological certainty' folks who have this great conviction that their theological system must surely be exactly what the Bible says and means-- Where exactly does that conviction and ardor come from?

Not even Paul in the Bible dots all the i's and crosses all the t's of a particular theological system and more to the point, he has no compelling interest in doing so. He is interested, as are all the Scriptural writers in simply bearing witness to a truth and a reality they have not merely come to believe in, but which they have experienced and which has changed their lives. They still have questions and intellectual doubts, and we hear about them in various places and ways in the Scripture. Their faith in God is not based on a conviction that they have a coherent theological system which they in essence fully understand and can explain. Their faith in God comes from having a personal relationship with God which provided them with enough evidence to produce faith in God. They know enough to know-- that they don't know enough to produce a comprehensive system called 'the knowledge of God'.

Humility is fostered more by a recognition of and an owning up to what you don't know about God, than what you do. This is not because we do not know a good number of things about God both from the Word and the through the Spirit. We do. We know enough to trust God for what we do not know and understand. And in the end our posture should be that of Anselm-- 'fides quaerens intellectum' faith seeking understanding, not 'intellectus quaerens fidium' 'Understanding seeking and defining and limiting faith'.


[N.B. I have posted this now, instead of Friday, as I will be away from the blog until next Wednesday, at the National SBL meeting. In the meanwhile, ya'll just go to town discussing this little non-controversial post]

P.S. Yes I do know many Calvinists who are very gracious and humble, and for this I am truly thankful. Many of my teachers at Gordon-Conwell low these many years ago, come to mind, especially J. Christy Wilson and Richard Lovelace-- true saints.

BW3

2008 Blog Awards for This Blog!

BW3 and Payne Stewart at Pinehurst No. 2.

I am very pleased to announce that the Blogsperts that be have announced that this blog has been named one of the top five blogs having to do with the Bible and Religion, and this is based not merely on traffic, but apparently on content. I am sure that it is not based on catchy design as I have preferred to keep that very basic and simple.

As we look toward Thanksgiving, I wanted to thank all the yea sayers and nay sayers who have made this blog a lively and healthy place for us all to discuss important matters related to the Bible and Christianity.

A blessing on all your houses--

May your turkey be plump, may your cranberry sauce be from real New England cranberry bogs, may your stuffing leave you stuffed, may your pun'kin pie be tasty, and may a good time be had by all.

I leave you with a now famous prayer my father once offered at my uncle's house in Statesville N.C. when he was asked on the spur of the moment to pray, and got a little flustered.

"Dear Lord, at this thanksgiving meal we ask that you pardon this food and bless our sins in Jesus name. Amen" (P.S. My aunt who had slaved for days over the turkey and food never let him live that one down).

BW3

NT Wright on the Colbert Report

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/174352/june-19-2008/bishop-n-t--wright

And here is another URL link for a fuller discussion by Wright about what he was discussing on the Colbert Report

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA0NLb0pXGI
---------------

In light of recent discussion about the faith of Stephen Colbert I offer this interview with my friend Bishop Tom Wright from earlier in this year. See what you think.

BW3

Mr. Soul 1967 Style

One of the original super groups was Buffalo Springfield--- Stephen Stills, Neil Young, and Richie Furay amongst others. Check this out.

THE RHETORICAL CHARACTER OF HEBREWS

A statue of Seneca assuming the task of a rhetorician.

-----------

The following is the text (but not the notes) of my Society of Biblical Literature lecture to be given next Sunday in Boston.


STRIVING FOR EPIDEICTIC EXCELLENCE:
THE RHETORIC OF HEBREWS
Dr. Ben Witherington, III
Amos Professor of NT for Doctoral Studies
Asbury Theological Seminary

PROLEGOMENA
Long ago Origen warned us that God only knows who the author of Hebrews is, but this has not prevented endless speculation in the last 2,000 years. Part of asking and answering that question is asking and answering the question--why is this document anonymous? Is it because the author is neither an eyewitness nor an apostle? This hardly seems likely to be the cause since we have other documents in the NT attributed to non-eyewitnesses and non-apostles such as Luke’s two volumes, or the Revelation of the seer John of Patmos. Is it because the author is a woman? This is possible but elsewhere women who played important ministry roles are named in Christian circles without any reservation. It is of course possible that the author is so well known to the audience that there was no need for such an identification here. I would suggest however, that while that may be true, there is another primary reason for the anonymity of this document.

This document, like 1 John is a homily , in fact D.J. Harrington has called it “arguably the greatest Christian sermon ever written down” It does not partake of the qualities of a letter except at the very end of the document (Heb. 13.22-25), and these epistolary features are added because this sermon had to be sent to the audience rather than delivered orally to them by the author. In fact, H. Thyen, after studying all the evidence for early Jewish homilies, has argued that Hebrews is the only completely preserved Jewish homily of the period, but this is overlooking 1 John, and James as well.

Sermon manuscripts, ancient or modern, do not conform to the characteristics of an ancient letter with addressor or addressee expected at the outset. Neither do other rhetorical forms of speaking, and make no mistake this document involves rhetoric of considerable skill. Hebrews then, to use an oxymoron, an oral document, and in fact a particular type of oral document—a homily in the form of a ‘word of exhortation’ as Heb. 13.22 puts it. It is not an accident that this is the very same phrase used to characterize Paul’s sermon in Acts 13.15. Hebrews is not a haphazard discourse but a piece of polished rhetoric which has been variously categorized as either epideictic or deliberative rhetoric or some combination of the two (see below). Here the point that needs to be made is that the document’s authority rests in its contents, not in its author’s claims to apostolic authority and its contents are grounded in the shared values the author and audience already embrace and affirm. To judge from the end of Heb. 13 it is assumed, but not argued for, that this author has some authority over this audience who knows very well who he is, and can anticipate a visit from him and Timothy before long. The oral and homiletical character of the document cannot be stressed enough. Here is how one professor of homiletics puts it:

Hebrews, like all good sermons, is a dialogical event in a monological format. The Preacher does not hurl information and arguments at the readers as if they were targets. Rather, Hebrews is written to create a conversation, to evoke participation, to prod the faithful memories of the readers. Beginning with the first sentence, ‘us’ and ‘we’ language abounds. Also, the Preacher employs rhetorical questions to awaken the voice of the listener (see 1.5 and 1.14 for example); raps on the pulpit a bit when the going gets sluggish (5.11); occasionally restates the main point to insure that even the inattentive and drowsy are on board (see 8.1); doesn’t bother to ‘footnote’ the sources the hearers already know quite well (see the familiar preacher’s phrase in 2.6: “Someone has said somewhere…”); and keeps making explicit verbal contact with the listeners (see 3.12 and 6.9, for example) to remind them that they are not only supposed to be listening to this sermon, they are also, by their active hearing, to be a part of creating it. As soon as we experience the rise and fall of the opening words of Hebrews, the reader becomes aware that they are not simply watching a roller coaster hurtle along the rhetorical tracks; they are in the lead car. In Hebrews, the gospel is not merely an idea submitted for intellectual consideration; it is a life-embracing demand that summons to action.

What we are able to say here is that since this homily is meant to be heard in the context of worship, we should evaluate it in that light. In worship one praises God for what he has done and is, and one draws near to Him as this letter exhorts us to do, but in worship we also hear and learn what we must go forth and do. Hebrews then is a vehicle for worship that leads to the right sort of service. The progression may be seen as follows – “since we have” (indicative)... “let us draw near” (imperative based on indicative)... “so we may hold fast “(possibility created by the first two steps). What the believer already has, provides the basis for and enables his response. The point is that now believers are better equipped to respond, since the final work of God through Christ has already come to pass. The work of God has affected what believers are, and therefore has enabled them to do what they must do. A.T. Lincoln suggests that our author believes the OT provides the following for the Christian: 1) it provides aspirations which only Christ can fulfill; 2) it offer a vision of our telos and perfection i.e. we are to have dominion over the cosmos, and already have it in Christ; 3) it offers a dream of the day when we cease from our labors and enter into God's rest; 4) it offers a desire to be free of sin's stain, and a recognition that sin against God and fellow humans is the essential human problem; 5) it offers a longing for free access into the divine presence; 6) it provides picture language--shadows and copies to prepare for the coming of Christ and God's final word; 7) in Melchizedek it provides a partial anticipation of the eternal priest and new covenant. To this we may add that it offers paraenesis, which our author sees as often just as applicable to his own audience as to the OT ones.

One more crucial thing, and it provides a clear and crucial key to the sort of rhetoric we have here. The use of inartificial proofs to reinforce and aid in the maintenance of existing values, values already embraced by the audience, was characteristic of epideictic rhetoric. If we ask how the OT quotations are consistently used, and to what end, the answer is to the end of reinforcing pre-existing patterns of praise and/or blame, already embraced patterns of belief and behavior. Epideictic rhetoric was indeed the rhetoric of sermons, just as praise was the language of worship, and in this discourse called ‘to the Hebrews’ we find an eloquent and harmonious convergence of these various factors to serve epideictic ends, as we shall see.


THE ISSUES OF STYLE AND FORM
Detailed attention to the Greek style of Hebrews has been given by a variety of scholars, not only to demonstrate that the author has a rather different style than we find in the undisputed Paulines, but also because this author knows how to use prose rhythm effectively as well as a whole host of rhetorical devices ranging from alliteration to anaphora to assonance to asyndeton to hyperbole to rhetorical comparisons to a greater degree than any other NT writer. These points deserve to be illustrated each in turn.

We may note at this juncture that there are some 4,942 words in Hebrews and 1,038 different words, and there are some very elegant Greek periods in this work, suggesting we are dealing with a rather well educated man with a considerable vocabulary and facility with Greek and a considerable knowledge and understanding of the OT. There are some 169 hapax legomenae, words not found elsewhere in the NT, including the use of various philosophical terms that speak to the educational background and sophistication of our writer. We may also note the some 90 words which are found in only one other NT document, as well as some ten words never found in Greek literature from before the time of Hebrews. There is a general consensus that we have the finest Greek in the NT if we are talking about Greek style which even goes beyond the Pauline standard both in vocabulary and sentence building.
We should add as well that our author is deeply indebted to the vivid visual imagery one finds in earlier Jewish sapiential and prophetic literature, so he speaks of a ship missing a harbor (2.1) or a double edged sword that penetrates to the innermost parts of a human being (4.12), or an anchor gripping the sea bottom (6.19), or fields watered by rain and producing either harvestable crops or weeds (6.7-8), or best of all, the vivid use of Sinai theophany imagery at the end of Heb. 12 to bring his peroration to a conclusion. It needs to be stressed at this point, since this is a document which was meant to be heard, that no one listening to this discourse would have thought this was a letter because the few epistolary elements we have do not come until the end of the document, much too late to signal what sort of document Hebrews’ audience was meant to think it was. Lincoln puts it this way: “Actually, once it is granted that the writer knows his addressees and is prevent by absence from delivering his homily in person, the epistolary conclusion makes good sense.” It was a necessary expedient since this discourse had to be written when the author was at a distance from the audience.

Here we may point out that the making visual and vivid use of the rhetoric was especially characteristic of epideictic rhetoric so well known for its mesmerizing and grandiloquent amplification techniques. What is especially interesting is that despite the imagery often used, it is clear our author is addressing city dwellers who have to be reminded they do not have a permanent earthly city to rely on (13.14), reminded as well to practice hospitality with those who come their way, visit and identify with those in prison, avoid inappropriate social interaction of a sexual nature, not give way to greed and crass materialistic patterns of living (all in Heb. 13).

As William Lane says, these sorts of reminders at the end of the discourse bear witness to the urban setting of the audience, and, we might add, at least in some cases the social status and affluence of at least some of the audience. The poor do not need to be warned against hoarding wealth and crass materialism. The educational sophistication of at least some of the audience is also presumed in light of the complexity of the rhetoric and its far from simple usage of the OT. “They have an easy familiarity with the stories of the Bible, to which the writer can refer without elaboration (cf. 12.17, “for you know…” with reference to the story of Esau, who was deprived of Isaac’s blessing). The writer is confident that he can win a hearing for what he wished to say by employing vocabulary sanctioned by the Greek Scriptures.”

In regard to the prose style and rhythm of the work, we are indebted to the careful study of James Moffatt and shall share some of his insights at this juncture , bearing in mind that this document was intended to be read aloud, indeed probably even performed as a sermon: 1) as I have previously noted was the case with that epideictic homily Ephesians, there are numerous long carefully constructed sentences in Hebrews (1.1-4; 2.2-4; 2.14-15; 3.12-15; 4.12-13; 5.1-3; 5.7-10; 6.4-6; 6.16-20; 7.1-3; 8.4-6; 9.2-5; 9.6-10; 9.24-26; 10.11-13; 10.19-25; 11.24-26; 12.1-2; 12.18-24), yet there are also a goodly number of pithy and very effective short sentences (cf. 2.18; 4.3; 10.18), and even one example of diatribe style (3.16-18) which was appropriate in popular preaching. 2) our author is a master at plays on words involving assonance (cf. parakaleite…kaleitai in 3.13; or emathen… epathen in 5.8; or kalou te kai kakou in 5.14; or menousan.. mellousan in 13.14). 3) “From first to last he is addicted to the gentle practice of alliteration” beginning from the very first words of the discourse polumeros kai polutropos palai…tois patrasin en tois prophetais” 3) care is taken with the cadences of prose rhythm which reflects a knowledge of the rhetorical rules about iambus, anapests and the like (see Aristotle, Rhetoric 3.8.6-7); 4) like Paul (and perhaps a sign of indebtedness to Paul) our author has a fondness for compound verbs with the syn prefix; 5) he is equally fond of rhetorical questions, and indeed other sorts of questions as well, even double and triple dramatic questions in a row (cf. 2.3-4; 7.11; 9.13-14; 10.29; 11.32; 12.9 for single questions; 1.5; 1.13-14; 12.5-7 for double questions, and for the triple question 3.16-18). 6) our author is given to using explanatory asides, sometimes weighty ones (cf. 2.16; 3.7-11; 5.13-14; 7.12,19; 8.5; 10.4; 11.13-16; 11.38; 13.14) and often these are used to explain an OT phrase according to our author’s hermeneutic (4.10; 6.13; 7.2,7; 10.8); On the other hand the author carefully avoids hiatus (i.e. the ending of one word with a vowel which begins the next word); and unlike Paul he also avoid anacoluthon--breaks in grammatical sequence. We find anaphora (a series of lines beginning with the same word) in Heb 11 in fact 18 sentences in a row begin with the word pistei by faith. 7) the author also seems to reflect not only a knowledge of koine but also of classical Greek, for only in this document do we find such classical phrases as Ei men in 6.14; or the use of pou in 2.6,4.4, or the use of pros ton Theon in 2.17. Notice that we also have oratorical imperatives like “take heed” 3.12; “consider” 3.1,7.4; “call to remembrance” 10.32 which reflect the oral character and rhetorical orientation of the author. 8) The author also reflects a knowledge of both Jewish Wisdom literature and philosophical Hellenistic writings (on the latter compare his use of the term “will” in a manner like the Stoics, or “the final goal” in fashion like Epictetus). Occasionally our author uses words and phrases in a way similar to Philo (such as moral faculty, Demiurge, moderate ones feelings towards, bring to perfection, nemesis, model). Thus, one can say our author not only has a considerable vocabulary, he also seems to have read rather widely (which is certainly possible if he lived for a time near the greatest library in the then known world in Alexandria). Moffatt concludes that he knew not only the LXX but Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the various Maccabees books, and perhaps even Philo. Moffatt ends by noting that our author has the style of a trained orator, “he has an art of words, which is more than an unconscious sense of rhythm”, and he operates as a preacher whose first duty is to be faithful but his second duty is to be eloquent. D. Aune is even more emphatic: “The author obviously enjoyed the benefits of a Hellenistic rhetorical education through the tertiary level”. This provides a natural segue to our discussion of the rhetoric of Hebrews.


THE RHETORICAL DISCUSSION PROPER

We are now well served in regard to the rhetorical discussion of Hebrews and the consensus of opinion is not only that this document reflects macro-rhetoric (the various divisions of a rhetorical speech) as well as micro-rhetoric but that its species is either deliberative or epideictic or some combination of the two. In other words, there is agreement that it is definitely not judicial or forensic rhetoric , and also that the recognition of individual rhetorical devices, which certainly are plentiful in Hebrews, does not take the full measure of the way our author uses rhetoric.

There are rather clear clues in the document itself as to what sort of rhetoric it is. Bearing in mind that paraenesis or exhortation could be found in both deliberative and epideictic rhetoric, we must consider what the author is trying to accomplish by this rhetorical masterpiece. Consider the following statements in the discourse: 1) 2.1—“we must pay more careful attention therefore to what we have [already] heard, so that we do not drift away”; 2) 3.1—“therefore holy brothers and sisters who share in the heavenly calling fix your thoughts on Jesus”; 3) 3.12--- “see to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you…turns away from the living and true God”; 4) 4.1--- “Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it” ; 5) 4.14 ‘therefore… let us hold firmly to the faith we profess…” 6) 6.1, 11 “therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity… we want each of you to show this same diligence to the end…we do not want you to become lazy but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised ” 7) 10.22-23, 35 “let us draw near to God with a sincere heart…. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess…. Do not throw away your confidence…” 8) 10.39—“we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed” 9) 12.1—“let us throw off everything that hinders.. and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us” 10) 12.14-15-- “let us make every effort to live in peace…see to it that no one misses the grace of God”; 11) 13.1-- “keep on loving each other as brothers and sisters”; 12) the discourse as a whole is called a word of exhortation in a brief (!) letter – 13.22. As G. H. Guthrie has rightly pointed out, the alternating back and forth between exposition and exhortation with the latter being the punch line, makes evidence that this discourse exists for the sake of the exhortation which directly addresses the issue of concern. Thus one must stress that “the expositional material serves the hortatory purpose of the whole work.”

If we look at all of this carefully it seems very clear that this discourse is not about urging a change in direction, or a new policy, nor is the author correcting obvious new problems in belief or behavior. Further, the author is not trying to produce concord or reconciliation in the audience, he is rather trying to shore up their faith in the face of pressure, suffering, and the temptation to defect. He is trying to confirm the audience in a faith and practice they already have, urging them to stand firm against the dangers of apostasy and wandering away, and stay the course with perseverance continuing to run in the direction they are already going, and have been going since they first believed, thus going on to perfection and exhibiting their faith and perseverance. This sort of act of persuasion is surely epideictic in character, appealing to the values and virtues the audience has already embraced in the past.

The focus of the rhetoric in this document is furthermore, clearly in the present. Our author focuses on what Christ is now doing as the heavenly high priest, what the audience is and ought to continue to be doing in the present, and there is the appeal to continue to imitate the forbears in the faith and Christ himself. The appeal to imitation can be found in either deliberative or epideictic rhetoric, in the latter case it is an appeal to continue to imitate the models they already know of and have looked to. When we couple all this with the doxological beginning of the discourse in Heb. 1, and the worship climax in 12.18-27, it seems clear that this discourse maintains an epideictic flavor throughout. Most rhetorically adept homilies in any case fell into the category of epideictic rhetoric.
Also comporting with this conclusion is that we do not have formal arguments in this discourse, but rather one long act of persuasion that involves comparisons, enthymemes, repetition, amplification, use of catchwords, and a toggling between exposition of texts (that provide the inartificial proofs or witnesses to the truths the audience is being reminded of) and application or paraenesis. Furthermore, after the exordium in 1.1-4 it was not necessary to have a ‘narratio’ or ‘propositio’ since in effect there is only one long argument or act of persuasion in various parts throughout the discourse. The encomium of faith in Heb. 11 does not stand out from its context as if it were some sort of digression or different type of rhetoric, or a rhetorical anomaly in the midst of a non-rhetorical document. Also comporting with the conclusion that this is epideictic rhetoric is the enormous amount of honor and shame language used in this discourse to make sure that the audience will continue to be faithful in their beliefs and behavior and life trajectory, not slipping back into pre-Christian forms of religion, in this case non-Christian Jewish ones.

Most ancient commentators who were rhetorically attuned saw Hebrews as epideictic in character, and of modern commentators, Lane, Attridge, and Olbricht have all opted for seeing Hebrews as basically epideictic in character, with Olbricht concluding it most resembles a funeral encomium. Koester and L. Thuren see the document as a mixture of deliberative and epideictic rhetoric as do Luke Timothy Johnson and A. T. Lincoln, while W.G. Ubelacker urges that we have deliberative rhetoric here, a conclusion Lindars also reached. Lindars provides no justification for this conclusion at all, and Ubelacker’s analysis suffers, as Thuren has pointed out, from the fact that he tries to find a ‘narratio’ and a ‘propositio’ where there is not one. Heb. 1.5-2.18 is no ‘narratio’ (a narration of relevant past facts) any more than it is an ‘exordium’—the latter is limited to 1.1-4. In the case of Johnson and Lincoln, they are certainly right that the expositions lead to the exhortations and serve the latter, but exhortations are as common a feature of epideictic as deliberative rhetoric. It is the nature or character of the exhortation that decides the issue here, and a careful analysis of all the paraenesis in this documents shows that it is aiming to help the audience maintain beliefs and behaviors they have already embraced. In other words, the exhortations are epideictic in character, as are the expositions.

We also have no ‘propositio’ in this discourse which should have been a dead giveaway that we are dealing with epideictic rhetoric, the effusive, emotive, and often hyperbolic rhetoric of praise and blame The author is not trying to prove a thesis but rather praise some important things—Christ and faith for instance. To the contrary, at Heb. 1.5 we dive right into the first part of the discourse itself which entails an exposition of Scripture involving a negation that God ever spoke of or to the angels in the way he spoke of Christ. This is followed by the exhortation in 2.1-4 that builds upon it. While Thuren is right that 1.5ff. amplifies the exordium, it certainly ought not to be seen as simply part of the exordium.

After seeing 1.1-2.4 as the exordium, Koester suggests that 2.5-9 is the ‘propositio’ of the whole discourse , but this simply does not work. Heb. 2.5-9 is not a thesis statement that is then demonstrated in all the subsequent arguments. Far too much of what follows is not about Christ’s superior position, condition, and nature, especially from Heb. 11.1 on to the close of the discourse, but we could also point to much of Heb. 4 and 6 as well. The issue is both Christology and paraenesis or the imitation of Christ and Christ-likeness as the author does not want the audience to commit either intellectual or moral apostasy. It comes down ultimately to whether they will continue to admire, emulate and worship Jesus

Koester is however right that the peroration begins in Heb. 12, though not at 12.28. It is best to see that in terms of macro-rhetoric we have a simple structure here:
1) exordium--- 1.1-4. Notice how the beginning of the discourse is linked to this exordium through using hook words, preparing for the comparison with angels who are introduced in 1.4.
2) the epideictic discourse composed of one long unfolding act of persuasion or sermon in many parts--- 1.5-12.17. This part can of course be profitably divided up into some subsections. For example. Morna Hooker suggests a chiastic structure as follows:
3.1-4.13 Imagery of Pilgrimage, Including first warning
4.14-5.10 Introduction of idea of Jesus as High Priest
5.11-6.12 First severe warning
6.13.-10.18 Jesus our High Priest
10.19-32 Second severe warning
10.32.-11.40 The Importance of Faith
12.1-29 Imagery of Pilgrimage, Including final warning. On this showing the theme of Christ as the heavenly high priest is central to the whole discourse. This makes excellent sense, and one could even talk about the imagery of placing visually Christ in the inner sanctum of the heavenly sanctuary just as he is placed at the center of the discourse verbally.

3) ‘peroration’ with concluding benediction—12.18-29--- the emotional climax of the argument comes here with the pilgrims assembled at the holy mountain and exhorted finally to worship God acceptably. This is followed, as is typical of all the expository sections, with
4) a final paraenesis in 13.1-21 which sums up some of the major exhortations of the discourse-- behave responsibly, persevere steadfastly, and pray fervently, be prepared to ‘go outside the camp’ as Jesus did. Thus interestingly the peroration is the emotional climax of the theological rhetoric whereas 13.1-21 is the emotive exhortation climaxing the ethical rhetoric. This is the same sort of thing we find in Ephesians, another example of epideictic rhetoric, where the discourse does not stop at the peroration but offers up some concluding exhortations that sum some things up.
5) Because this sermon is written down, there are some concluding epistolary elements---13.22-25 (such as the explanation of the reason for writing, personalia, concluding greetings and a concluding grace wish). We will unpack this structure much more fully in a moment.

The function of an exordium was to establish rapport with the audience and make them favorably disposed to hear what follows. One way to accomplish this is to use highly elevated and eloquent language at the outset which will immediately get the audience’s attention. We certainly have this in Heb. 1.1-4 where our author unloads a variety of rhetorical devices including a great deal of alliteration, impressive sounding phrases (‘radiance of his glory’). It was important for the style to suit the subject matter. Thus Koester is right to note that the “elevated style of Hebrews’ exordium suits the grandeur of its subject matter: the exalted Son of God.” We see the same sort of exalted style in Heb. 11.1-12.3 where the other main thing that is praised in this discourse, faith, is discoursed on at length. As Aristotle stressed, such elevated prose can impress and help gain the favor of the audience, appeal to their imaginations, and make clear that an important subject is going to be dealt with here (see Rhetoric, 3.6.1-7). It was a rhetorical must that weighty matters not be treated in an offhand matter, nor trifling things be invested with too much dignity (Rhetoric, 3.7.1-2). “When our audience finds [a speech] a pleasure to listen to, their attention and their readiness to believe what they hear are both increased” (Instit. Or. 8.3.5). In an oral culture, how something sounded had everything to do with whether it would be listened to, much less believed. It is hard to over-estimate the importance of the oral dimensions of the text in helping to persuade the audience of the content of the discourse.

As Olbricht has pointed out, in a rhetorical encomium there are standing aspects of a person’s life which will be praised—his noble birth, illustrious ancestors, education, fame, offices held and titles, wealth, his physical virtues (e.g. strength), his moral virtues, and his death. Without question many of these topics surface in the praise of Jesus in this sermon. We may also point out that the comparisons (synkrisis) we have in this discourse, for example between Jesus and the angels, or Jesus and Melchizedek, or Jesus and Moses, or the believer’s current life compared to what will be the case if they commit apostasy or go in a retrograde motion into a form of religion that will not save them follows the conventions of epideictic rhetoric in regard to such comparisons. The function of such comparisons in an epideictic discourse is to demonstrate the superiority of that one person or thing which is being praised (see Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1.9.38-39; Rhet. Alex. 1441a27-28). Andrew T. Lincoln ably sums up how ‘comparison’ functions in Hebrews:
Synkrisis, [is] a rhetorical form that compares representatives of a type in order to determine the superiority of one over another. It functions as a means of praise or blame by comparison and makes the comparison in terms of family, natural endowments, education, achievements and death. In Hebrews various earlier figures or types of Christ are seen as lesser by comparison with him and family relations (Christ as divine Son) education (learning perfection through suffering) and death (the achievement of Christ’s sacrificial death) all feature in the comparison. This sort of argument structures the discourse because, as in an encomium, a discourse in praise of someone, the synkrisis is used for the purpose of moral exhortation. So in Hebrews, the comparison of angels and the Son, of Moses and Christ, of Aaron and Christ, of the levitical priesthood and Christ, of the old covenant and the new covenant, is in each case followed by paraenesis.

In this discourse it is Christ’s superiority and the superiority of faith in Christ and following his example which is being praised, and this is contrasted with falling away, defecting, avoiding shame or suffering. Christ is the model of despising shame and maintaining one’s course in life faithfully to the end, and indeed of being ‘perfected’ through death—sent directly into the realm of the perfect. While the emphasis in this discourse is mainly on that which is praiseworthy, our author does not hesitate to illustrate blameworthy behavior, for example the unfaith and apostasy of the wilderness wandering generation is pointed out (Heb. 3.7-19). In fact rhetorical comparison can be said to be the major structuring device for the whole discourse right to its climax in the peroration at the end of Heb. 12 as our author exalts the better mediator, the better sacrifice, the better covenant, the better example of faith, and the better theophany, all by means of rhetorical synkrisis not with something that is bad, but rather only with something that is less glorious or adequate or able to save people.

One more thing can be stressed at this point. Epideictic rhetoric characteristically would use a lot of picture language, visual rhetoric so that “you seem to see what you describe and bring it vividly before the eyes of your audience” and thus “attention is drawn from the reasoning to the enthralling effect of the imagination” (Longinus, On the Sublime, 15.1,11). Epideictic rhetoric persuades as much by moving the audience with such images, and so enthralling them, catching them up in love, wonder and praise. The appeal to the emotions is prominent in such rhetoric, stirred up by the visual images.

Consider for example the beginning of the peroration in Heb. 12.22 where we have the last harangue, the final appeal to the deeper emotions of these Diaspora Jewish Christians who have been pressured and persecuted and in many cases may have never had the joy of making the pilgrimage to Mt. Zion—“But you have come to Mt. Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God… to Jesus the mediator.” These are Christians who, like the author have likely never seen or heard Jesus in person. But now before their eyes is portrayed the climax of their faith pilgrimage, the same sort of climax that Jesus reached when he died, rose and then ascended into heaven. And the discourse ends with worshipping God with reverence and awe, a clearly epideictic topic meant to create pathos. Our author knows very well what he is doing in this epideictic discourse, and he does it eloquently and brilliantly from start to finish. He has made Jesus and true faith so attractive that it would be shameful to turn back now, shameful to defect, and stirring to carry on with the beliefs and behaviors they have already embraced.

AND SO?
One of the consequences of recognizing and analyzing the rhetorical species of Hebrews is that it becomes impossible to see the exhortations or paraenetic portions of the discourse as mere interruptions, digressions, after thoughts, appendages while the Christological discussion is seen as of the essence of the discourse. To the contrary, the author chooses his OT texts carefully, gives his exposition, then offers his exhortations based on the exposition as all part of an attempt to deal with the rhetorical exigence, namely the need to stand firm and not to fall back or backslide, the need to continue on the pilgrimage already begun towards perfection, the need to continue to believe and behave in ways that comport with such commitments.

But is there some rhetorical logic to the alternations between exposition and exhortation in this homily? The answer is yes, and has been rightly discerned by T.W. Seid. What he points out is that the expositions are part of a larger effort to draw comparisons principally between Christ and others. Thus, he sees the structure here as follows: comparison of Son and angels (1.1-14) and parenesis (2.1-18), comparison of Moses and Christ (3.1-6) and parenesis (3.7-4.16), comparison of Aaron and Christ (5.1-10) and parenesis (5.11-6.20), comparison of Melchizedek/Christ and the Levitical priesthood (7.1-25) and parenesis (7.26-8.3), comparison of the first covenant and new covenant (8.4-10.18) and parenesis (10.19-12.29), and epistolary appendix (13.1-25). This synkrisis/paraenesis alternation encourages the audience to progress in moral conduct by remaining faithful to the greater revelation in Jesus Christ and emulating the models of its scripture, as well as warns the audience of the greater judgment to befall those unfaithful to the greater revelation.

What is praised and what is blamed in this discourse is not part of some abstruse exercise in exegesis for its own sake. It is part of a pastoral effort to deal with the struggles the Jewish Christians are having in Rome to remain true and faithful to the things they have already committed themselves to embrace. To this end, our author’s rhetorical strategy in picking the texts that he does is not because of his intellectual curiosity about messianism or a Christological reading of the OT. Rather Pss. 8, 95,110 (and perhaps 40), Jer. 31, Hab. 2 and Prov. 3 are texts which are picked and dealt with because they help make the case that the inadequacy or ineffectiveness or ‘partial and piecemeal’ character of previous revelation and covenants is self-attested in the OT. But that is only the negative side of the persuasion going on in this rhetorical masterpiece with carefully selected inartificial proofs from the OT. Other texts are brought in as well to support the positive side of the argument, which is that the good things said in the OT to be yet to come are now realized only in Christ, and faithfulness is required if these eschatological promises are to be also realized in the lives of those who follow Christ. Thus it can be said that in Hebrews, “theology is the handmaiden of paraenesis in this ‘word of exhortation’, as the author himself describes it”. With these comments in mind it will be helpful to give a more expanded outline of the argument of this discourse showing the relationship of the elements in the discourse.

EXORDIUM--- 1.1-4 Partial revelation in the past, full revelation in the Son

SECTION THEME OT TEXT PARENESIS
PROBATIO- PART ONE (1.5-14) CHRIST’S SUPERIORITY catena (1.5-13) 2.1-4
PART TWO (2.5-18) ‘YOU CROWNED HIM’ Ps. 8 (2.6-8)
PART THREE (3.1-4.13) ‘TODAY’ Ps. 95 (3.7-11) 3.12-4.13
PART FOUR (4.14-7.28) ‘PRIEST FOREVER’ Ps. 110 (5.6) 4.14-
16; 5.11- 6.12
PART FIVE (8.1-10.31) ‘NEW COVENANT’ Jer. 31 (8.8-12) 10.19-29
PART SIX (10.32-12.3) ‘BY FAITH’ Hab. 2(10.37-38) 10.32-36;
12.1-2
PART SEVEN (12.3-17) ‘DON’T LOSE HEART’ Prov. 3 (12.5-6) 12.3-16

PERORATIO-- 12.18-29 PILGRIM’S END Theophany at Sinai texts (Ex. 19; Deut. 4,9, 31; Hag. 2.6)
FINAL SUMMARY PARAENESIS--- 13.1-21
EPISTOLARY CLOSING-- 13.22-25

Several concluding remarks are in order. It is clear enough that all of these sections with the exception of Part Two have paraenesis, in some cases the OT citation has preceding and following paraenesis in order to turn the exposition into exhortation or application. The paraenesis is not relegated to the end of the discourse but is rather sprinkled liberally throughout the discourse. It takes up a good deal of the verbage of the discourse and could hardly be called a series of appendages. The problem all along has been that many scholars find the expositions more interesting and challenging than the exhortations, and therefore have tended to feature or privilege them in the ways they have thought about this discourse.

Secondly, the focus is clearly on the here and now, and what is already true hence the emphasis on ‘today’, on the new covenant which is already extant and in force, on not losing heart but rather continuing to have faith and be faithful, persevering in the present, and on what Christ has accomplished and is even now doing in heaven on behalf of the believer. The focus is on the here and now both theologically and ethically which is appropriate in epideictic discourse.

Thirdly, our author almost exclusively sticks to texts from the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the latter prophets. There is nothing really from the historical books, which is all the more striking since he is making a salvation historical kind of argument, and since in Heb. 11 he recounts some of the adventures and misadventures of the period chronicled in 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles.

Fourthly, one part of this discourse leads naturally to the next as an unfolding message develops involving both theology and ethics. Particularly striking is how the final section of the argument leads so smoothly into the peroration with the imagery of running a race to a final destination introduced in 12.1-3, and then the pilgrim arrives at the goal as described in the peroration beginning at 12.18. There is overlap, repetition, amplification, reinforcement in the argument but this is precisely what one would expect in an epideictic discourse, as I have shown in detail elsewhere with the case of 1 John. One of the interesting differences between these two sermons is that 1 John is topically driven, but not textually driven, and so is less of an expository sermon in that sense, whereas Hebrews is certainly textually oriented and is far more expository in character. We begin to see the remarkable range of the Christian rhetoric of praise and blame in 1 John and Hebrews, and in both cases the sermons are directed in the main, if not almost exclusively, to Jewish Christians in two different major cities in the Empire (Ephesos and Rome) which were seedbeds for the early Christian movement.

We need to keep steadily in view that the function of praise and blame of any topic was to motivate the audience to continue to remember and embrace their core values (involving both ideology and praxis) and avoid slipping into blameworthy beliefs and behaviors (see Aristotle,Rhetoric, 1.9.36; Quintilian, Inst. Or. 3.7.28; Rhet. Ad Herrn. 3. 8, para. 15). In other words, even when using complex concepts and ideas the ultimate aim of the rhetoric is practical and ethical in character. We should not be beguiled by the eloquence of the rhetoric of Hebrews into drawing false conclusions about its ends and aims and real focus, rather, we must be guided by that rhetoric if we are to make sense of this endlessly interesting ‘brief exhortation’ that has stirred up the juices of the best minds in Christendom for low these many years. Let us hear with two good rhetorically attuned ears what the Preacher says to his Jewish Christian audience.

Colbert Goes to War Against XMAS

Stone

STONE: THE COLD HARD FACTS*


A stone
Stands alone
Unmoved
Unmoveable
In stele silence.

Solid but cold
Hard but old
Yet not aging
Rocks of ages

The stuff of idols
Edifices
Statues
Monoliths

Cornerstones
Keystones
Tombstones
Petraglyphs

From you
The Pieta
From you
Rocky

Petrified by
Stone Mountain or
Mt. Rushmore

From you
Avalanche
From you
Lava rocks

Precipices
Points
Pebbles
Ledges
Edges


Stoning
Head stoned
(Goliath of Gath)
Millstones
Neck stoned
Stones of
Kidney and Gall



Stone cold
Sober
Stoned
Tripping




Rolling stones
May gathering no moss
But they sure do
Rock…..

Who rolled away the stone
On chilly Easter morn
Not Pierre, Petros, Peter
With faith not yet reborn?

A house built on rock
A house built on sand
With Christ the living stone
The foundation will stand

* To be read with increasing downhill momentum and crescendo

Nov. 17, 2008

BW3

Positive Reviews of the Living Legacy Pour In.....

The Reviews of my most personal and intimate work are pouring in and here are some of the first ones. For those interested in exploring the work more here is the link--

http://wipfandstock.com/store/The_Living_Legacy_The_Soul_in_Paraphrase_The_Heart_in_Pilgrimage

---------------



"I have known Ben Witherington as a superb scholar, teacher, and proclaimer of God's Word. This book introduces us to Ben the poet. He and Julie Noelle Hare have brought together a collection of poems, reflections, and readings from Holy Scripture—a wonderful treasury of the spiritual life."
—Timothy George
Beeson Divinity School

"The Living Legacy is a must read for anyone who seeks to understand and be transformed by written reflections on the holy mysteries of the Christian Year and beyond. Ben Witherington knits the sacred and secular together in one unique volume through poetry, theological reflections, meditations, and personal musings. Ben has given the reader a holistic way in which to better understand their relationship to the Kingdom of God and affirm their higher calling as a disciple of Jesus Christ."

—The Right Reverend John Bryson Chane
Episcopal Bishop, Diocese of Washington D.C

This is a book of spiritual value for our times, and it has an honored pedigree. As well as having a line by George Herbert for subtitle, The Living Legacy has a warm devotional tone and a tripartite structure that are reminiscent of John Donne's famous Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions. Ben Witherington's poems correspond to the metaphorically-inventive "Meditation" sections in each of Donne's Devotions, Ben's "Theological Musings"on the relevant scriptures to Donne's "Expostulations", and Julie Hare's "lectio divina" to Donne's "Prayers."But each of the modern sections is readily accessible and the whole work is reader-friendly for 21st-century audiences. -- Christopher M. Armitage

Bowman & Gordon Gray Professor of English and Adjunct Professor of Peace, War and Defense

Greenlaw Hall CB 3520 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3520



"For those who know Ben Witherington from his voluminous scholarly writings, this book will provide a wonderful introduction to the poetic spirit of the man. And not only to his poetic spirit, but also to his deep understanding of the essence of the Christian life and his gifted ability to convey this in fresh, compelling ways. His poetry is evocative, challenging, and persuasive-calling the readers not only to enter into a new perception of the Christian life but to engage that life for themselves. His prose 'digressions' on the poems flesh out the focus of the poem in a more left-brained mode for those for whom the right-brained dynamic of poetry is difficult. Julie Robertson's supplementary materials from the spiritual masters of the Christian tradition help to locate Witherington's musings within the solid core of classical Christian spirituality. Finally, the organization of the book with the stages of the liturgical year provides a new and refreshing means for moving through the Christian calendar from Advent to the Sunday of Christ the King."

—Dr. M. Robert Mulholland, Jr.
Professor of NT and Spiritual Formation
Asbury Theological Seminary

S.C. Priest bans Obama Supporters from taking the Eucharist, and Pope Prohibits Kentucky Priest from supporting Women's Ordination!

Well, I've heard it all now. A priest in South Carolina, one Jay Scott Newman (no relation, I suppose, to John Henry Newman) has decided that parishioners who voted for Barack Obama are not entitled to the grace of Jesus Christ through communion until they've done penance. In a pastoral letter to his Greenville S.C. flock he wrote:

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law,"

Here is the link to the full story which my son sent me from D.C.:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/11/priest_calls_vote_for_obama_a.html?referrer=emaillink

David Waters, who wrote the story commented as follows:

"Perhaps I'm not the best person to question any clergy person's right to deny the body and blood and grace of Christ to any Christian. I'm a Methodist and we'll serve communion to just about anyone with a pulse.

But really?

Newman is denying communion not to those who have conducted or received an abortion, and not to those who enact laws that allow for abortion, but to those who cast a vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights. In effect, he's saying that thinking is now mortal sin. He's saying that having an opinion is a mortal sin. He's saying that freedom of speech and thought is a mortal sin."


Meanwhile on another front, excommunication has been threatened for a priest right here in Kentucky who merely attended the priestly ordination of a Catholic woman:

Here is Father Ray Bourgeois' letter of response to the Vatican:

"TO THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, THE VATICAN

I was very saddened by your letter dated October 21, 2008, giving me 30 days to recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church, or I will be excommunicated.

I have been a Catholic priest for 36 years and have a deep love for my Church and ministry.

When I was a young man in the military, I felt God was calling me to the priesthood. I entered Maryknoll and was ordained in 1972.

Over the years I have met a number of women in our Church who, like me, feel called by God to the priesthood. You, our Church leaders at the Vatican, tell us that women cannot be ordained.

With all due respect, I believe our Catholic Church's teaching on this issue is wrong and does not stand up to scrutiny. A 1976 report by the Pontifical Biblical Commission supports the research of Scripture scholars, canon lawyers and many faithful Catholics who have studied and pondered the Scriptures and have concluded that there is no justification in the Bible for excluding women from the priesthood.

As people of faith, we profess that the invitation to the ministry of priesthood comes from God. We profess that God is the Source of life and created men and women of equal stature and dignity. The current Catholic Church doctrine on the ordination of women implies our loving and all-powerful God, Creator of heaven and earth, somehow cannot empower a woman to be a priest.

Women in our Church are telling us that God is calling them to the priesthood. Who are we, as men, to say to women, "Our call is valid, but yours is not." Who are we to tamper with God's call?

Sexism, like racism, is a sin. And no matter how hard or how long we may try to justify discrimination, in the end, it is always immoral.

Hundreds of Catholic churches in the U.S. are closing because of a shortage of priests. Yet there are hundreds of committed and prophetic women telling us that God is calling them to serve our Church as priests.

If we are to have a vibrant, healthy Church rooted in the teachings of our Savior, we need the faith, wisdom, experience, compassion and courage of women in the priesthood.

Conscience is very sacred. Conscience gives us a sense of right and wrong and urges us to do the right thing. Conscience is what compelled Franz Jagerstatter, a humble Austrian farmer, husband and father of four young children, to refuse to join Hitler's army, which led to his execution. Conscience is what compelled Rosa Parks to say she could no longer sit in the back of the bus. Conscience is what compels women in our Church to say they cannot be silent and deny their call from God to the priesthood. Conscience is what compelled my dear mother and father, now 95, to always strive to do the right things as faithful Catholics raising four children. And after much prayer, reflection and discernment, it is my conscience that compels me to do the right thing. I cannot recant my belief and public statements that support the ordination of women in our Church.

Working and struggling for peace and justice are an integral part of our faith. For this reason, I speak out against the war in Iraq. And for the last eighteen years, I have been speaking out against the atrocities and suffering caused by the School of the Americas (SOA). Eight years ago, while in Rome for a conference on peace and justice, I was invited to speak about the SOA on Vatican Radio. During the interview, I stated that I could not address the injustice of the SOA and remain silent about injustice in my Church. I ended the interview by saying, "There will never be justice in the Catholic Church until women can be ordained." I remain committed to this belief today.

Having an all male clergy implies that men are worthy to be Catholic priests, but women are not.

According to USA TODAY (Feb. 28, 2008) in the United States alone, nearly 5,000 Catholic priests have sexually abused more than 12,000 children. Many bishops, aware of the abuse, remained silent. These priests and bishops were not excommunicated. Yet the women in our Church who are called by God and are ordained to serve God's people, and the priests and bishops who support them, are excommunicated.

Silence is the voice of complicity. Therefore, I call on all Catholics, fellow priests, bishops, Pope Benedict XVI and all Church leaders at the Vatican, to speak loudly on this grave injustice of excluding women from the priesthood.

Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador was assassinated because of his defense of the oppressed. He said, "Let those who have a voice, speak out for the voiceless."

Our loving God has given us a voice. Let us speak clearly and boldly and walk in solidarity as Jesus would, with the women in our Church who are being called by God to the priesthood.

In Peace and Justice,
Rev. Roy Bourgeois, M.M."




So all you bloggers out there in the blogosphere I ask you---is Father Newman right? Is Father Bourgeois right? Can they both be right? Are they both wrong? Let me know what you think? Whatever you think, there's never a dull moment in the Roman Catholic Church!

BW3

A QUANTUM OF SOLACE-- A QUOTIENT OF PAIN

Vengeance, revenge, wrath. It is often the human response to being deeply wounded, or having someone you love be deeply wounded or even killed. And while it is perfectly normal as a fallen human response to injustice and wickedness, this in itself does not make it a good or godly response. Can one really get a quantum of solace from inflicting a quotient of pain?

This is the question posed to us in the latest Bond thriller, and it is indeed a telling question, and towards the end of the movie one gets a hint of an answer when the female lead played by the Ukrainian star Olga Kurylenko asks Bond, after she has killed the man who murdered the rest of her family-- "What do I do now?" If you have lived for revenge and made it your mission in life, what comes next, once it is mission accomplished?

The movie suggests that there is something profoundly unsatisfying about revenge, rather than it being sweet, or at least, if there is a sense of release, there is also a sense of emptiness, a hollowness about the victory--- precisely because you have become what you despised, a person who ruthlessly kills another person.

To be sure, a James Bond action film is not usually intended to be a morality play, although one has to say that this one comes closer than most such movies. Especially telling is the scene in the middle of the film in which a performance of the opera Tosca is going on, and is the setting used as a venue to plot and plan what I can only call eco-terrorism, the hoarding of water in a dry and weary land.

Why is Tosca an apt play within the morality play that is this movie--- consider the following summary of some of the plot of Puccini's masterpiece---

"Sciarrone enters to announce that earlier reports were mistaken, Bonaparte has defeated the royalist forces at the Battle of Marengo. Mario Cavaradossi [the hero], exulting (Vittoria!), is taken away to prison. Tosca [the hero's girl] attempts to follow him, but is held back by Scarpia. She asks what the price is to free Mario. Scarpia avows his passion for her and lasciviously demands her body, her virtue, and herself, as the price. Tosca attempts to flee but is restrained by Scarpia as he attempts to rape her. During the struggle drums are heard – Scarpia indicates that they are the drums beating Cavaradossi to the scaffold. Tosca finally collapses and asks the Lord the reason for all this cruelty against her (Tosca: Vissi d'arte, vissi d'amore – “I lived on art, I lived on love”; Scarpia: Sei troppo bella, Tosca, e troppo amante – “You're too beautiful, Tosca, and too loving”). Feeling as if she has no alternative, Tosca finally agrees to yield. Scarpia orders Spoletta to organize for a mock execution of Cavaradossi, while Tosca demands a safe-conduct for herself and the painter to leave the country. While she is waiting for Scarpia to write it, she notices a knife on the table, and makes the decision to kill Scarpia rather than allow him to rape her. As he advances to embrace her, she plunges the knife into him. (Questo è il bacio di Tosca–"This is Tosca's kiss"). Having piously composed the body for burial, she departs to the sound of drums in the distance (E avanti a lui tremava tutta Roma – "And before him trembled all of Rome")."

Here is a tragic tale providing a true example of how death and revenge triumph over love, again and again.

And this is Bond's dilemma in the latest installment of the Bond films (number 22 if anyone is counting, in almost 40 years worth of filming). He truly loved Vespa, the girl he fell for in Casino Royale, and though he swears he is only doing his duty, in fact in the end he admits that a large quotient of his actions are part of an attempt to get revenge for Vespa's death, and most especially to kill the man who destroyed her.

I must say that while I found this film less 'fun' and enjoyable than Casino Royale, I did find it a riveting film, and not because of the usual grip the edge of your seat chase sequences, though they are not lacking in this movie. While it is sometimes said that revenge is a dish best served cold, this movie serves it up piping hot, and it leaves your breathless in the end. I quite disagree with A.O. Scott, the NY Times movie critic's review this morning (see http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/movies/14quan.html?th&emc=th). This film is not a hodge podge at all. It is one that will bear repeat watchings, not least because of the subtle and crucial dialogue in spots.

Daniel Craig has injected back into the Bond business a new energy, life, vibrancy, and yes a brooding ominous presence. He is also clearly the most athletic of the Bonds, and appears believable in scenes that Pierce Brosnan and others were not believable. To be sure, one still has to suspend one's disbelief when one watches one harrowing escape after another ('he takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'), but this is less of a problem with Craig than with previous Bonds.

Brown is the operative dominant color of this particular film-- brown as in desert, brown as in too much sun, brown as in the color of a dead corpse, brown as in burnt-- emotionally, brown as in growing old (see Judi Dench as M). Brown is the color of parched Bolivia, and the buildings in Haiti, and even Sienna as well which are some of the major venues for this film. You should not go to this film expecting a travelogue of the beautiful places, nor for its humor, although there are one or two wry moments in the film.

While most American movies these days operate on the 'youth must be served' mantra, this film does not. It is not teenagers but rather older persons-- those in their 40s thru 80s who rule the world. More specifically the film suggests older men rule the world, but then this is Ian Fleming's original vision, and the movie is true to that. In this regard the movie's gestalt is somewhat dated or outdated. Even the strong women in the end give way to an attract for or trust in Bond in this film.

This movie is rated PG-13 mainly because of the violence and sexual innuendo (no explicit sex scenes) and it moves along very rapidly for its somewhat less than two hour length.

There is no lard in this movie. There is also no Lord in this movie. It is only the machinations of men that parade across the screen in a world of sorrow and sin where humans control all the action. And yet there is an irony-- if there is no God, why then is there such a passion for justice deep in the heart of human beings when everything in the world is compromised by sin? Why try for human revenge if at most it gives you a moment of release, a small quotient of satisfaction, a quantum of solace? Instead of looking for a quantum of solace someone should have read Qoheleth:

"Everything under the sun is meaningless, like chasing the wind. What is wrong cannot be righted. What is missing cannot be recovered." Eccles. 1.14-15. That's the way life is-- without that ultimate action hero who once cheated death. You know who I mean, but his identity will be concealed here, until you have eyes to see.

Who Was the Hurdy Gurdy Man???

Extra brownie points in heaven, if you can name Donovan's back up band for this classic song from the 60s, especially who is that guitarist????

BW3

"This is my Body, Stolen by You"--The Communion Wafer Bandit

O.K. what do you get when you combine the fact that lots of weird things happen in Florida, and lots of weird things happen in church? Well, how about lots of weird things happen in church in Florida, take for example the communion bandit of Jensen Beach Florida.

Here is the story line link so you can verify and assess this weirdness

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27667151/?GT1=43001

So what happened was a 33 year old man, in a Catholic church decided to make away with a bunch of hosts. No, not that kind of hosts, he wasn't kidnapping little old ladies. He was nabbed and pinned to the floor until the police could come by an 82 year old and a 61 year old man. Nothing makes a faithful old Catholic madder than someone trying to steal the body of Christ!!! Suddenly these two men didn't need their Geritol that morning--- the adrenaline rush was quite enough. The most amazing thing is that this 33 year old man thought he could get away with this caper DURING A WORSHIP SERVICE! What was he thinking?

Was he thinking-- "Well the hosts are tiny, no one will miss them?"
Was he thinking---"They've got so many of them, they can spare some?"
Was he thinking---"No one will mind, they taste like cardboard anyway?"
Was he thinking-- "The priest is nearsighted, he won't notice how many I grabbed?"


Anyway, he's being held in the Martin County jail on the charge of disrupting a religious assembly, among other things. This gave me an idea. I didn't know you could be thrown in the pokey for that. Hmmm, you know this could be a way of getting rid of disruptive church members. You know the one's I mean. This law could be applied rather easily in a Pentecostal Church where people are constantly standing up and exercising their charismatic gifts even when the pastor says "let everyone be silent and I will pray." I wish I had known about this law a long time ago.

I remember one Sunday whilst working in Hamilton UMC in Massachusetts a phone call came in. It was the Catholic priest from the neighboring church. There seems to have been a wedding there on the day before and someone left a whole host of hosts just sitting on the altar after a wedding of a Catholic and Methodist couple. He wanted to know if they had been consecrated or not. I did not know, since no one at my church had participated in the service. I could hear an audible groan at the other end of the phone line, and then the priest said "so I have to eat all these Eucharistic wafers before the next service. Arrgh. I need some wine to wash them down." And he hung up.

My advice to the communion bandit is-- Next time you try a trick like that, have enough sense to go to a church which doesn't believe the wafers are actually the body and blood of Jesus. You'll never get away with stealing that sort of stuff! White little pieces of stuff that taste like cardboard and are not believed to morph into Jesus' body--- well maybe other parishioners will even encourage you to take and eat them for others!

And Dat's all I gotta say 'bout dat.

If you are actually interested in the meaning of the Lord's Supper, check out my book Making a Meal of It.

BW3

On Conjugating Greek Verbs and Assessing their Aspects

I have asked one of my doctoral students, Brad Johnson to give a good concise review of a new title provided by Zondervan on the issue of some of the aspects of how verbs work in Greek, and how they differ from the way verbs work in English. The review, offered below, speaks for itself.

The thing most often mishandled in the translation of Greek into English is the proper way to deal with Greek verbs. Greek verbs tend to give us a sense of what the Germans call Aktionsart--- that is, a kind of action (complete, incomplete, in progress, finished etc.) rather than primarily giving us a sense of the timing of an action. For example, an action can be past in its inception but still ongoing now (often expressed by an imperfect tense verb). An action can begin in the present and continue on into the future (which can be expressed either in a present or an imperfect tense verb). An action can be punctiliar, completed in a moment in the past or the present or even the future (e.g. the aorist does not always refer to something in the past). And even when one is referring to a future action, one must ask, is it punctiliar or progressive, and more importantly how do the forms of the Greek verbs help us to make such distinctions? It is thus always useful to have more and better tools to help us with Greek verbs. See what you think of Brad's review.

BW3


------------
Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008)

I arrived at my office one day last week to discover a "hot off the press" copy of Constantine Campbell’s Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek, graciously provided to me by Dr. Ben with a request that I draft a short review of the work. As a biblical languages teaching fellow at Asbury seminary, I often have the opportunity to see such new releases. This one in particular struck my attention because of its treatment of verbal aspect: an ongoing conundrum for Greek grammarians. With great enthusiasm I quickly began skimming through its pages at the expense of pressing matters already piling up on my desk. The concept of verbal aspect continues to be a daunting matter from an instructional standpoint, so it was with anticipation that I engaged the work.
A slim volume of 133 pages (excluding the glossary of terms, a Scripture Index, and answers to exercises), the text immediately evinces itself as a member of the larger Zondervan family of Greek resources, the flagship of which is William Mounce’s Basics of Biblical Greek. Zondervan has developed a veritable armada around this very standard introductory Greek grammar, and the title of Campbell’s volume -- along with its cover artwork -- clearly place it in the family portrait.
The text is broadly arranged around two primary parts: the first dealing with verbal aspect theory, and the second with verbal aspect in the New Testament text. The chapters are short (five in each larger division), the prose is conversational without being either patronizing or obtuse, and the pages are replete with copious examples and visual illustrations. The book begins with an initial overview of traditional understandings of verbal aspect, then segues into a short history of the treatment of verbal aspect, highlighting recent contributions to the field of study. From there, the text dives into a discussion of aspect in the various tenses, moods, and alternate constructions (i.e., participles and infinitives). Much of the second part of the book involves practical applications of the skills and concepts developed in the earlier part.
In assessing the book, three primary descriptors come to mind. First, the book is helpful in terms of painting in broad strokes a picture of the landscape of the issue. Campbell's treatment of the constituent elements of verbal forms and meanings in Greek is a useful introduction to the discussion. Moreover, his explanation of aspect as consisting of a variety of elements (both pragmatic and semantic in variety) offers the reader a useful guide to engaging the concept. In an effort to demystify verbal aspect, Campbell is bold in critiquing previous attempts, innovating at times his own conceptual formulations and terminologies to buttress his presentation. It is in this innovating that I come to my next descriptor
Whereas the book certainly is helpful in some regards, it also has a tendency to be confusing. Campbell's approach deviates in a significant way from that of Mounce and Daniel Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, the syntactical counterpart to Mounce’s grammatical text) in terms of understanding and treating verbal aspect. The traditional approach to verbal aspect as taken by the likes of Mounce and Wallace has been to understand it as occurring in one of three varieties: progressive, summary, and resultative (or, in more traditional terminology, imperfective, aoristic, and perfective respectively). Campbell opts instead for a dual understanding of aspect that virtually eliminates traditional understandings of summary/aoristic aspect. The break from the Mounce/Wallace model can be clearly seen by a conspicuous absence of footnotes referencing either of them. In fact, only two footnotes are attributed to either, and both of those are to Wallace. (Mounce’s description of the text as “an excellent place to start investigating this important issue" perhaps reveals an underlying hesitation to fully embrace it.)
Confusion grows as one encounters curious statements that Campbell makes consistently throughout, only a few of which will be addressed here. Consider, for example, "The present tense-form is universally regarded as being imperfective in aspect” (40). This is a fundamentally different perspective than is found in Basics of Biblical Greek, where Mounce says, “The present tense indicates either a continuous or undefined action. You can translate either ‘I am studying’ or ‘I study.’ Choose the aspect which best fits the context" (BBG, 135). To make his point concerning the imperfective nature of the present tense, Campbell cites an example from Mark 4:14-20 where not only are the verbal examples in Greek clearly to be understood aoristically, but he also translates them for the reader using aoristic aspect. Further, he repeatedly cites various forms of the verb oida to indicate how traditional renderings of perfective aspect fail to work. The confusion comes in the fact that the forms he uses as representing the perfect tense are not perfect tense forms: oida, although it bears minor resemblance to perfect tense formation, is a present tense form. In addition, many of the examples he uses of the perfect tense--errors regarding oida notwithstanding--actually disprove his premise (see his treatment on p. 48 of the verb dedwken as it occurs in John 7:22). And finally, Campbell's attempt to assign semantic value to verbs with respect to transitivity is a hazardous enterprise. On the one hand, he states that "If a lexeme is not transitive, it must be intransitive" (56). At the bottom of the same page, he then reverses himself by saying "there are certain lexemes that can be either transitive or intransitive." He then takes a more centrist and tenable position where he states, "for the sake of specific analysis in the following chapters, [some] lexemes will be described as either transitive or intransitive depending on whether or not they act upon an object in specific contexts" (58-59).
A third descriptor that characterizes his work is misleading. Although I very much appreciate Campbell's attempt to demystify the entire verbal aspect conundrum, his approach has a tendency to be mechanical and programmatic. The exercises he offers the reader indicate his propensity to seek “right” answers. In his introduction, he states that his aim is in fact "to get verbal aspect right" (16). This is indeed an ambitious position, and one that may deceive a student of the Greek New Testament into thinking that there are in reality "right answers" that can be attained simply by means of the "right methodology". One of the real disappointments of his book is his lack of consideration of matters of genre, especially as genre relates to and informs one's understanding of verbal aspect. Specifically, should one's understanding of, for example, imperfective aspect in narrative material be treated in the same standardized way as imperfective aspect in epistolary discourse?
When distilled down to its essence, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek is a less-than substantial work. White space between chapters, diagrams, New Testament examples in both Greek and English, and in-text exercises consume an enormous portion of this already very slight work. When also considering the fact that much of the second part of the book is a restatement (at times verbatim) of the material from the first part, one begins to realize that the work is little more than an introduction to the concept, and perhaps not an entirely helpful one at that. Although Campbell's performance certainly has some memorable moments, it in large measure disappoints when considered alongside the enormous contributions of its siblings; and for that reason, this is not a text I will recommend for use by my students.

Brad Johnson

Joke of the Day from a Marxed Man

"Outside of a dog, a good book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read!"--- Groucho Marx

For Those Lacking a Sense of Deja Vu--BONUS VIDEOS

Monk See, Monk Do-- The Disgrace of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

There are few places that better demonstrate both the diversity and the divided character of Christianity than the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. So divided are we, that in order for anything to go on in that Church which likely stands over the spot where Jesus was crucified, the keys to the front door have been held by a Muslim family for centuries, because of course the Christians who have staked out turf in this building couldn't decide who should have the keys! The most recent and visible evidence that the church is a 'many-splintered' thing is the fight that broke out yesterday in this historic church between Armenian and Greek Orthodox monks. Here is the link to the story.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1488655367/bctid1909210367

Notice that Christians couldn't settle matters themselves so the Israeli riot police had to come in and break things up--- a total disgrace. I wish I could say that real Christians don't behave this way, but since I have seen it with my own eyes in my own church, sadly I am unable to say this. It is too easy to write this off as non-born again folks behaving badly.

In fact this sort of thing happens between equally sincere, equally devout Christians. This is the opposite of being the light of the world and the salt of the earth. This is bearing witness to the darkness of human fallenness and the stinking carcass of our sin.

It may be hoped that the parties involved in this disgrace will repent, and then apologize to each other. In the meantime the Jesus who died on the cross on this very spot shakes his head and says--- "I died for this? I died so my followers could behave like this?" I think not.

So lets review: 1) the Muslims opened and shut the doors of this church yesterday; 2) the Israeli Jewish police came and stopped a fracass in the foyer of this church; and what did the Christians do while Jews and Muslims were watching--- 3) THEY PUNCHED EACH OTHERS LIGHTS OUT!!!

Father forgive us, for we know not what we do, nor how terrible our witness to a watching world is.

BW3

INVITATION TO A BOOK-SIGNING

Hi Friends: This is your invitation to a book-signing at Joseph-Beth Booksellers Monday Evening Nov. 10th at 7 p.m. (Come early and get the cookies!). Ann (my wife) and I will be signing the Lazarus Effect, and I will read an excerpt from it; and Julie Hare and I will be signing The Living Legacy, and reading some of the poems. If you are within shoutin' distance come on over to Lexington Green tomorrow evening. A good time will be had by all! Come on down.

BW3

The Gamla Synagogue

(pictures, except the first one, courtesy of Justin Taylor and the folks who produced the ESV Annotated Bible, which certainly has the best illustrations to date in a study Bible)


One of the major debates in NT Studies in the past 50 or so years is when and where synagogues, which is to say purpose built religious buildings, began to crop up in Israel or the Diaspora. At one point there were numerous NT scholars who were emphatic that there were no such purpose built buildings during or before the NT era. This in turn led to the insistence that what we see in the Gospels and Acts, which refers to synagogue buildings with some regularity reflects the later conditions of the author, in some cases from late in the first century outside Israel, and then within Israel. In other words, the NT writers were accused of anachronism at best. Here is a good example of how NT scholarship is sometimes done either blithely ignoring the archaeological evidence, or castigating it as ambiguous or irrelevant, or attempting to explain it away. Dr. Lee Levine came forward in writing and in SBL sessions and elsewhere and made emphatically clear that there were indeed purpose built synagogues even in Jesus' day and thereafter, and that in fact the practice may well pre-date the Herodian era. One of the sites Levine most based his argument on was in the lower Golan Heights, at the village of Gamla, sometimes also called Gamala (from the Hebrew word for camel, because the hill on which the village rests looks like the hump, or perhaps the nose of a camel from a certain angle). As it turns out, Levine was absolutely and positively right. A little of the history of Gamla is in order, since it is not a city mentioned in the Bible.

The village seems to have begun as a Selucid outpost in the 2nd century B.C. where a fort was established as a sort of early warning signal for those living in the Holy Land. It seems to have begun to become a civilian settlement of Jews sometime later in that century. Bible readers may know this site if they have read Josephus' Antiquities, in particular 13.394 which recounts how Josephus himself, as a Jewish commander early in the Jewish war in the A.D. 60s fortified this outpost as one of his main lines of defense of Galilee from Roman attack. According to Josephus, the city was laid seige to by the Romans, and the seige was at first repulsed, but then the Romans, who had built a seige ramp, took the city with huge loss of life (Josephus says as many as 4,000-5,000 Jews died, but he is famous for his exaggerations). One of the questions rightly raised about his grisly account, which even suggests many Jews committed suicide (something forbidden by Jewish Law) is that no human remains have been found (cf. Jews Wars, 4.1-83). In my own analysis of Josephus' work three cautions are in order: 1) the Antiquities, which is the later work tends to be less historically accurate and more an attempt at apologetics to the Roman audience on behalf of Jews; 2) the Jewish Wars account was written earlier, and is often more substantial and probably more accurate; 3) Josephus in both works is doing his best to make himself look good, and we must always bear in mind that he came under the Imperial patronage of Vespasian and his sons after the war, due to his remarkable prophecy, given whilst Vespasian was still a commander in the Holy Land that Vespasian would become Emperor.

Our main interest however in this post is not on the military history of the village, but its religious life, and the excavation of the synagogue at Gamla, which is very substantial indeed, shows that in fact there were indeed synagogue buildings during the NT era, and before. This building can rightly be compared to what has been found at Masada, Sepphoris, Capernaum and elsewhere in the region. Why is this of importance for NT studies?

In the first place, the archaeological evidence removes the necessity for the argument that Acts reflects second century Jewish religious life, not first century conditions. My own observation is that time and again when people have questioned the historical accuracy of the remarks in the NT about buildings and historical locales, the NT has eventually been vindicated by the archaeological evidence. This should give pause to scholars who too hastily want to argue alternate cases, merely dismissing the evidence of the NT about things like: 1) where Jesus was buried, or 2) whether there was a synagogue of Greek speaking Jews in Jerusalem in Jesus' day and the like.

The importance of the Jewish evidence should be evident when we also want to raise the question of what the earliest Christians would have thought about purpose built buildings. All of the earliest followers of Jesus were Jews, many of them were devout, and certainly most of them will have attended worship services in synagogues in Galilee and elsewhere, as the clear evidence suggests that Jesus did as well (see. e.g Lk. 4/ Mk. 6). Jesus, it will be remembered was highly critical of the Herodian Temple, not because it was a building built with human hands, but because God's house had been turned into a den of robbers or bandits or thieves. In other words, Jesus renewed the prophetic critique not about building buildings, but about corrupt practices within them, when they were supposed to be houses of prayer and sacrifice. Similarly, if you read Craig Hill's important book Hebrews and Hellenists
he quite convincingly shows that Stephen is not temple critical or Torah critical, he is critical of God's people, who kept killing the prophets and failing to live by God's Word. In other words, Jesus and his earliest followers did believe that the Herodian Temple might well be the Temple of Doom, destined to be destroyed by God, but not because it was a building, rather because of the corruption within the building and its human administration. Jesus and Stephen were not early examples of anti-edifice preachers, nor were they iconoclasts either. They were rather devout early Jews who did not want the House of the Lord, whether synagogue or Temple, polluted by wicked practices.

If we turn then to the evidence of Acts 1-6 and ask about the views of the earliest Christians about religious buildings, it seems clear they do not have a problem with them in the least. Peter and other Christians continue to hold meetings in Solomon's Portico in the Temple, Paul continues to attend worship in synagogues, indeed starting his evangelistic efforts there where ever he goes, and when he returns to Jerusalem, he gladly participates in support of Nazaritic vows and rituals in the temple at the request of James, despite the danger to his own life. Of course it is also true that Jewish Christians met in homes, as did Gentile Christians later. There became an increasingly good reason legally speaking to do so, as the first century marched along and it became increasingly clear that Christians were not simply Jews, or a sect of Judaism.

Judaism in the first century was a licit religion. Jews were allowed to have their own temple and sacrifices and they were not required to sacrifice to the Emperor, rather the distinction was made that they could offer prayers and sacrifices on behalf of the Emperor. Even though there was anti-Semitism rife throughout the Empire, the official Roman policy was to allow indigenous groups to continue to practice their religions, as long as it was an ancient, respected, identifiable religion, recognized by the Roman senate. Judaism was such a religion. However, as the first century went along and more and more Gentiles became followers of Jesus, even becoming the majority of such followers in various places in the Empire, it became increasingly clear that the 'Christianoi' the partisans of Christ, or those who belonged to Christ (a name first given to them by outsiders in Antioch) were not simply Jews. This in turn made them practitioners of what Romans called a 'superstitio', an illicit religion. Now this was a difficult thing for Christians not least because unlike Judaism, early Christianity was a highly evangelistic religion, even recruiting from the highest eschelons of society, something that Luke in Acts draws repeated attention to. But if they were thrust out of the synagogue, and not allowed to meet in the open by pagan officials because of being a 'superstition' where would they meet? Of course they would continue to meet in homes. This was not made a religious principle, rather they had to make a virtue out of a necessity. The movement had to continue to grow and expand without constantly being subject to the watchful eye of governing officials who increasingly wanted to promote an alternative new religion--- the Emperor cult. Of necessity then, Christians, when the parting of the ways with the synagogue came, met increasingly in homes. The fact that this was not a theological issue or principle but rather a practical one is shown so very clearly already when: 1) Christians began to turn homes into churches in the last third of the first century in places like the house of Peter in Capernaum, and 2) when they began already in the second century to build underground church structures in places like Turkey. At the very top of this post is an image from Turkey of a very early example of this practice.

Now what is notable about the underground churches in Turkey built between the late first and 4th centuries, which is to say, between the time when Nero began persecutions of Christians, and when that stopped when Constantine became Emperor and declared Christianity a licit or legal religion, is that clearly this practice was engaged in to protect Christianity and allow it to grow and thrive. The church literally met underground. What is interesting to me about the actual structures of these churches is they have adopted some of the things from the synagogue, for example in their niches in the back of the structure for their holy scrolls, and some things from the home, such as the little tricliniums you find with benches so a meal could be shared including the Lord's Supper. What I need to stress is that Christians did not build underground homes, they built underground church structures in these places. They continued to live above ground, but they would meet either in well walled houses, or underground during these centuries. They had no problems with building purpose built structures with synagogue features, and increasingly with their own architectural and Christian designs. They did not hold to theological principles that suggested religious edifices were inherently bad, and body life in houses was theologically better. The notion that there was some enormous sea change in attitude about buildings between the time of earliest Jewish Christianity and later when Gentiles were in the majority of Christians is a myth, a myth of pristine origins followed by later pagan corruption. No, in fact there was a continuum from earliest Christianity onward in which Christians were happy to meet in synagogues, temples, or homes, where ever they were welcome and could worship in spirit and truth. But once Christians had been branded as practitioners of a false superstition by Nero and later Emperors, this increasingly removed them from worship in synagogues, and drove them to adopt and adapt, turning houses into purpose built religious meeting places, and later in areas where it was possible as in Turkey, building often enormous and elaborate underground churches. The earliest Christians neither had an 'edifice' complex insisting on religious buildings, nor did they have an anti-edifice complex. They were flexible and practical and went with what was possible in a given place, always bearing in mind that once they had emerged from the Jewish womb and were no longer seen as a part of Judaism, they were an illicit religion and had to be careful where, and how, and when they met. Open, above ground meetings in urban areas became increasingly impossible because they would be noticed. Here below is the famous letter of Pliny to Trajan written in about 111-12 A.D. from Bithynia, asking for advice about what to do with Christians and whether they should be forced to renounce their faith. Christianity was a faith under fire.
Here is the text of the most famous of these letters....

XCVII Pliny to Trajan:
It is my constant method to apply myself to you for the resolution of all my doubts; for who can better govern my dilatory way of proceeding or instruct my ignorance? I have never been present at the examination of the Christians [by others], on which account I am unacquainted with what uses to be inquired into, and what, and how far they used to be punished; nor are my doubts small, whether there be not a distinction to be made between the ages [of the accused]? and whether tender youth ought to have the same punishment with strong men? Whether there be not room for pardon upon repentance?" or whether it may not be an advantage to one that had been a Christian, that he has forsaken Christianity? Whether the bare name, without any crimes besides, or the crimes adhering to that name, be to be punished?
In the meantime, I have taken this course about those who have been brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians or not? If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confession, I ordered them to be executed; for I did not doubt but, let their confession be of any sort whatsoever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy deserved to be punished. There have been some of this mad sect whom I took notice of in particular as Roman citizens, that they might be sent to that city. After some time, as is usual in such examinations, the crime spread itself and many more cases came before me.
A libel was sent to me, though without an author, containing many names [of persons accused]. These denied that they were Christians now, or ever had been. They called upon the gods, and supplicated to your image, which I caused to be brought to me for that purpose, with frankincense and wine; they also cursed Christ; none of which things, it is said, can any of those that are ready Christians be compelled to do; so I thought fit to let them go. Others of them that were named in the libel, said they were Christians, but presently denied it again; that indeed they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so, some three years, some many more; and one there was that said he had not been so these twenty years. All these worshipped your image, and the images of our gods; these also cursed Christ.
However, they assured me that the main of their fault, or of their mistake was this:-That they were wont, on a stated day, to meet together before it was light, and to sing a hymn to Christ, as to a god, alternately; and to oblige themselves by a sacrament [or oath], not to do anything that was ill: but that they would commit no theft, or pilfering, or adultery; that they would not break their promises, or deny what was deposited with them, when it was required back again; after which it was their custom to depart, and to meet again at a common but innocent meal, which they had left off upon that edict which I published at your command, and wherein I had forbidden any such conventicles. These examinations made me think it necessary to inquire by torments what the truth was; which I did of two servant maids, who were called Deaconesses: but still I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition. Hereupon I have put off any further examinations, and have recourse to you, for the affair seems to be well worth consultation, especially on account of the number of those that are in danger; for there are many of every age, of every rank, and of both sexes, who are now and hereafter likely to be called to account, and to be in danger; for this superstition is spread like a contagion, not only into cities and towns, but into country villages also, which yet there is reason to hope may be stopped and corrected. To be sure, the temples, which were almost forsaken, begin already to be frequented; and the holy solemnities, which were long intermitted, begin to be revived. The sacrifices begin to sell well everywhere, of which very few purchasers had of late appeared; whereby it is easy to suppose how great a multitude of men may be amended, if place for repentance be admitted.
[Footnote 3: It was one of the privileges of a Roman citizen, secured by the Sempronian law, that he could not be capitally convicted but by the suffrage of the people; which seems to have been still so far in force as to make it necessary to send the persons here mentioned to Rome. M.]
[Footnote 4: These women, it is supposed, exercised the same office as Phoebe, mentioned by St. Paul, whom he styles deaconess of the church of Cenchrea. Their business was to tend the poor and sick, and other charitable offices; as also to assist at the ceremony of female baptism, for the more decent performance of that rite: as Vossius observes upon this passage. M.]
XCVIII
Trajan to Pliny
You have adopted the right course, my dearest Secundus, in investigating the charges against the Christians who were brought before you. It is not possible to lay down any general rule for all such cases. Do not go out of your way to look for them. If indeed they should be brought before you, and the crime is proved, they must be punished;1 with the restriction, however, that where the party denies he is a Christian, and shall make it evident that he is not, by invoking our gods, let him (notwithstanding any former suspicion) be pardoned upon his repentance. Anonymous informations ought not to be received in any sort of prosecution. It is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and is quite foreign to the spirit of our age.
[Footnote 1: If we impartially examine this prosecution of the Christians, we shall find it to have been grounded on the ancient constitution of the state, and not to have proceeded from a cruel or arbitrary temper in Trajan. The Roman legislature appears to have been early jealous of any innovation in point of public worship; and we find the magistrates, during the old republic, frequently interposing in cases of that nature. Valerius Maximus has collected some instances to that purpose (L. i., c. 3), and Livy mentions it as an established principle of the earlier ages of the commonwealth, to guard against the introduction of foreign ceremonies of religion. It was an old and fixed maxim likewise of the Roman government not to suffer any unlicensed assemblies of the people. From hence it seems evident that the Christians had rendered themselves obnoxious not so much to Trajan as to the ancient and settled laws of the state, by introducing a foreign worship, and assembling themselves without authority. M.]

The notes above in brackets are from William Melmoth, a classics scholar of an earlier age.


In his recent important Cambridge monograph, James Tunstead Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt the indebtedness of early Christians to the synagogue in three ways: 1) in terms of their worship practices; 2) in terms of their leadership structures, particularly in regard to the roles of elders, and 3) in terms of their thinking and adaptation of what religious buildings should look like, and how they should be constructed. Here is not the place to do a lengthy review of this fine study, but the essential point made should be stressed--- IT WAS NOT PAGANISM OR EVEN THE INFLUX OF GENTILES INTO THE EARLY CHURCH THAT LED TO ITS HAVING PURPOSE BUILT BUILDINGS, HIERARCHIAL LEADERSHIP STRUCTURES, OR STRUCTURED WORSHIP PRACTICES. NO, THESE THINGS EXISTED FROM THE BEGINNING IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY BECAUSE OF ITS DEEP INDEBTEDNESS TO EARLY JUDAISM AND ITS ATTITUDES, THEOLOGY, AND PRACTICE IN REGARD TO SUCH THINGS.

It is of course also true, that early Jewish Christians add important things to the mix when it came to leadership and religious structures, worship patterns and the like. Early on it began to have its own religious symbols such as the IXTHUS symbol. But innovation is only what one would expect from a pneumatic or charismatic movement like early Christianity. But since the Gospel was to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile as even the apostle to the Gentiles insisted (cf. Rom. 1.1-4 to his practice in Acts)in every place that Paul went he began by evangelizing Jews, Jews who brought into the church their own religious ethos and practices, including of course their beliefs and praxis in regard to worship, buildings, and leadership.
It is always a delicate thing to understand and represent the balance between the continuity in these matters that Judaism and Christianity shared, and the discontinuity. The point is, that early Christian worship, leadership, and attitudes about religious structures was not simply what the Romans would call a NOVUM, something totally new. This is precisely why outsiders, when they attended Christian worship in homes and elsewhere, often remarked on the Jewishness of what they experienced. It was unlike paganism and polytheism in many ways. Read sometime Robert Wilken's classic book The Christians as the Romans Saw Them and you will see what I mean.

Think on these things. BW3

The Morning After, the Election

Here is a commentary by my friend James Howell on the election-- written well before Election Day. See what you think. BW3
------------


The election is over. For the Oval Office, one winner, one loser. But neither is a loser. Both are people who offered themselves for public service, and have lived under a microscope, under intense scrutiny, with a schedule that would exhaust the most energetic of us.

Winning voters are tempted to strut, to gloat; losing voters are tempted to sigh, to rage, to shudder with disgust. This is fine, and serves as an index into the fact that we care, we are invested as citizens, we hold deep beliefs. We have excellent cause to rejoice over high voter turnout, and intensity of feeling on both sides; what greater sign of hope could there be?

But the election is over, and we have a new President, and a coterie of other public servants. Do we remain stuck in our giddy delight? Or in our exasperated disappointment? Not as the people of God, not for those who believe we might in some way be “one nation under God.”

It is time to be one nation, one people, to throw all our support and hopes behind the democratically elected officials who will lead. The alternative is forever to oppose, to subvert, to grouse… but is the Spirit in us when we do? Partisan politics is our great gift, and yet the ruin of the country. A good idea is trashed, just because the other guy had it.

Gloating and disgust are tabled. Only prayer is in order. The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer prescribes daily prayer for the President, by name, and the Governor, and other elected officials. Imagine if all the people in America who claim to believe in God actually prayed for their leaders? Or spent one-tenth as much time in seeking the heart of God as they do in griping?

If you believe that the election of Candidate X will be catastrophic, if you think Candidate Y’s policies are faulty, then you would be wise to begin to pray, today, that you turn out to be wrong. The morning after an election – and every morning for the believer, prayer is in order.

And citizenship. We have these “celebrity” elections nowadays, and a foolish belief that just one person can change everything. We thought if we just got rid of one person – the Ayatollah Khomeini, or Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden – then all would be well in the world. But these individuals are mere symptoms of much larger problems that require far more thorough, diligent, long-term attention.

In America, leadership really matters. But leadership requires active following, not passive spectatorship. If there has been energy and passion around this year’s election, it will have been wasted unless we translate that into consistent citizenship, involvement, each person doing his or her part to work at the problems and hopes before us, every organization – and especially the Church (our Church!) – getting engaged with what’s going on with compassion, justice, an optimistic spirit, a dogged zeal that says “Life matters, life can be extraordinarily good, and just as my vote matters, my involvement matters.”

So let us conclude by recalling the immortal words of Lincoln, trying to lead a divided nation, and make them our hope, our prayer, our marching orders: “The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes… With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds.”

Dr. James Howell
Myers Park UMC
Charlotte N.C.

ELECTION DAY QUICK QUIZ

This is a two part quiz, and there is no extra credit.

PART ONE
Where was John McCain born?

Where was Barack Obama born?

PART TWO
What is the rule in regard to where someone has to be born in order to run for the Presidency of the United States, or is there a birthplace rule?

Have Fun.

BW3

The Architecture of the Post-Modern Mind, Part IV (Guest Reflections)

I am very pleased to be able to conclude this series of posts with an insightful analysis by Dr. Steven Mizrach, a professor of Cultural Anthropology at Florida International University, used with his permission. This post helps us see some of the social and political implications of post-modernism, an appropriate subject the day before an election. I would suggest you also pay particular attention to what he says about tradition and religion in this post, as well as his suggestions about post-modernity and the future.

BW3

---------

Talking pomo: An analysis of the postmodern movement
by Dr. Steve Mizrach (aka Seeker1) of Florida International University

Postmodernism according to friends, foes, and spectators

When people talk about postmodernism, the problem is that they are referring to something very elusive and slippery. In the academic world, it is best understood as a new Weltanschaung - a new organizing principle in thought, action, and reflection, connected to many changing factors in modern society. The term postmodern was first applied, around 1971, to a new architectural style which combined old, classical forms with modern pragmatism and scientific engineering. Since then, the postmodernist advocates have used the term to describe their movement as a reaction to the wholesale failure of modernity - the betrayals of the modernist movement in the arts, primarily, but also modernity understood as a social process - industrialization, urbanization, centralization, and 'progress' and 'civilization' as those terms are often used popularly. This movement is not called 'antimodernism' because it is not a rejection of modernity in toto , but as its advocates claim, an effort to combine the best of the modern world with the best elements of the traditions of the past, in an organic way that eliminates the worst parts of both.

Critics of postmodernism come mainly from the Marxist camp. They feel that postmodernism is a diversionary tactic, the last ditch of a late capitalism in the process of dying. They dislike fervently the way that postmodern aesthetics rejects socialist realism - and, for that matter, epistemological realism. They often point out how semiotics and the postmodern idea that everything is image and nothing is substance are used cynically by advertising agencies - which, unable to sell us real goods of real production, can now only sell us images of satisfaction and packaged happiness. Marxists also dislike postmodernism's relativist treatment of science, since as they see 'criticism' (the critical method) and science as being identical. And they are not all too pleased by postmodernism's rejection of the proletariat and industrialism as liberators, nor its insistence (dating from the Situationists) that liberation of leisure may be more important than liberation of work... the way postmodernism intertwines with Nietzschean thought, deep ecology, mysticism, and libertarian individualism makes many Marxists view it as right-wing, reactionary, perhaps even fascist!

Non-Marxist critics of postmodernism abound, too. The right wing foams at the mouth at the way it dovetails with multiculturalism, feminism, 'direct democracy,' the "communitarian" movement, and some concerns they see as left-wing. The right-wingers feel that postmodernism is the last-ditch effort of a dying left wing... that left-wing academics, disappointed with Papa Joe Stalin and Pol Pot, have found a new weapon with which to smash Western civilization and rationalism. Other critics of postmodernism feel it is trying to have its cake and eat it too. From the modern world, it wants to take McLuhan's electronic technology and the 'global village' it allows while ditching other parts of modernity; without acknowledging that, sans modernity, such communication would not be possible. From the premodern world, it wants to recover the 'religious sensibility' and 'traditional values' of the past while jettisoning the intolerance and fundamentalism of religion or the "crushing weight" of tradition upon free thought. The postmodernists, their critics claim, do not see that both tradition and religion can be both liberating and stultifying, but you cannot "pick and choose" from both and claim to be doing anything but generating fictions.

Sociologists see postmodernism at work everywhere. Take scientology or radionics, for example - which combine sophisticated technology and scientific-sounding concepts with some very, very old, perhaps antiquated ideas. If postmodernism is anything, I think, it is perhaps a rejection of linear narrative, and our central linear narrative is History. Associated with that constellation are ideas like Progress, whether one views it as the Hegelian spirit of consciousness or the inevitable progression of the factors and relations of economic production. Scientists hate postmodernism because it suggests there is no such thing as "superstition." In the discourse-world of Foucaultian geneaology, there can be no ideas which are consigned to the "dustbin" of history. They can lose meaning as new discourses are adopted, perhaps even be abandoned as parts of discourses, but that does not mean they are "gone," for humanity never to reconsider. In the postmodern world, all things are subject to reconsideration . And that is how one can look at postmodernism: a reconsideration of the central constellation of ideas in the arts, economics, politics, philosophy, and sociology.

From prehistory to posthistory

The postmodernists point to various reasons for the end of history. Most disagree with the Fukuyama/Whig version, which is that with liberal democracy we called an end to the game in 1789. But most agree with the Joycean version, which is that "history is a nightmare from which we are all trying to awaken." Some think that our postliterate civilization simply will no longer wish to preserve history - at least, not in the oral or written way it has been done in the past. But most feel that the year1945 (when the apocalypse became a historical possibility, in the camps at Aushwitz and in the second sun of Hiroshima) or 1968 (when the world was turned upside down by a bunch of French students) marked the true signpost of the end of history, and the search for the way out. We have moved from anonymous prehistory to postnominal posthistory, to "history from below," where human actions continue to generate history, even if no one really knows where it is going or can honestly claim to control it. The task of the posthistorian is no longer charting the "lines" of history, but instead geneaology - a process that branches and bifurcates, dead-ends at some points and leapfrogs at others.

Our posthistorical age is marked by several features, we are told. Its various Zeitgeists go by various academic-sounding names: poststructuralism, postindustrialism, postliberalism, postrationalism, and postpatriarchy. In each of these cases, the "post" is there for the same reason. The previous state of affairs has neither been overthrown nor dissolved. Rather, it has been co-opted, supplanted, reformulated, enantiodromized (made into its opposite), or transcended. Postmodernism is a parasite within the body of modernity, digesting it with its enzymes; it is not a conqueror or a destroyer. No discontinuity is noticeable: which is why some people still feel this is a 'modern' age, unable to see the thousand simultaneous, invisible paradigm shifts which annulled modernity, fraying it at its edges, rather than attacking its core. Some postmodernists deny that some of the core values of modernity - such as humanism - are being attacked by their movement. Nor do they feel they are nostalgiacs, reactionaries, or part of the continual "retro" fads of society. What is going on, they say, is a reconsideration, a return to reflection, a reappraisal. Can that be so bad?

Poststructuralism in aesthetic appreciation and creation

The postmodernist movement in the arts has resulted in a new standard of aesthetic appreciation, and new forms of aesthetic creation - 'performance art' - etc. It is not entirely clear whether the new modes of criticism generated the new forms of creation, or if it was the other way around, but as with everything in postmodernity, it is likely that it was an organic, mutual process. The key concept of modern aesthetic appreciation was that intentionality did not matter and that representation had nothing to do with resemblance. In literature, this meant the "New Criticism" and "the Death of the Author," where critics would deal strictly with what was on the page, as an autonomous structure of schemas, devices, and tropes. Modernist poets eagerly experimented with various schemes of abandoning canonical schemes of rhyme, meter, and metaphor and metonymy. In the plastic arts, it meant "art for its own sake," and each painting or piece of sculpture was to be appreciated for its purely aesthetic features (curves, lines) and its geometric structure and not for "resemblance" to anything else. Hence cubism, abstraction, Action Painting, expressionism, futurism, surrealism, and Mondrianism.

Postmodern art takes the daring experimentation of modernism, but passes over its hesitant boundaries. It questions the boundaries between the process of creation and the completed act, between the creator/presenter/provider and the audience/appreciator/receiver, and between the private museum or gallery and the place of 'public exhibition.'. Postmodern art is about appropriation, about the Dadaists taking their urinals and putting them on display, about Warhol taking a Campbell soup can or Marilyn Monroe's lips, about Man Ray borrowing eyelashes and fingers from other photographs, about rap artists 'sampling' 1940s show tunes and turning them into bass rhythms, or Klein taking anything and making it his art by painting it with International Klein Blue. It is about John Cage sitting down at his piano for roughly five minutes, without touching a key, and receiving applause. Not because he has played a single sound, but because he is John Cage. For the postmodernists, intention is everything, and reception is everything, but content is nothing. For most modern artists, this makes postmodern art one big fraud.

If postmodernity means the abandonment of structure and content in the plastic arts, many anti-deconstructionists feel it is the abandonment of meaning and theme altogether in literature. Utilizing the ideas of Piercean semiotics, Sassurian linguistics, and Heidegger's philosophy, Derrida delivered the crushing blow to literary structuralism at Johns Hopkins in 1968. Henceforth, in the wake of poststructuralism, many literary critics have turned to other theories, such as Fish's reader-response criticism, Searle's speech-act theory, or Derrida's own offering, deconstruction. The key concept in postmodern literary criticism seems to be that any text contains additional meanings beyond what the author could have 'structured' into it, and that literary criticism is a process of creating meaning, not discovering it. As postmodernism is about breaking down boundaries, many critics feel that Derridean criticism will destroy the 'literary canon' and put Tom Clancy and the great works of Western civilization on the same level, and destroy the critical differentiation between 'high' art (which endures) and 'low' art (which does not.)

In other art areas - music, architecture (where it all started), sculpture, etc. - aestheticism is being challenged by postmodern critics. "Great" art's greatness, they say, does not adhere entirely within the work of art autonomously: it has something to do with the relation that exists between artist and art appreciator, a relation that exists within the field that we call "culture." For this reason, much of the new postmodern academic criticism is going on in 'cultural studies' departments, which do not agree with the modernist dictum that art is a mirror that dimly reflects society. The cultural studies profs feel that art - broadly defined - is strongly patterned by culture, and can and must shape it in turn. Poststructuralism, some modernist critics feel, has resulted in a proliferation of subjectivist positions, and hence an abdandonment of objective standards and universal criteria in artistic appreciation. This, they also argue, allows postmodern art creators to "get away with anything" - including canning shit and putting it in on display. But some postmodernist critics feel modern art was a betrayal because it did not admit its own dependence on context and situation.

Postindustrialism in economic organization

Marxist sociologists, always keen to see the economic transformations that precede (and, as they see it, generate) changes in ideology, feel that the true basis of postmodern thought is the shift to a post-industrial economy. Many postmodernists would agree, suggesting that in the new economy, service and information will be more important commodities than goods or labor power in the new "information society". Both would agree that biotechnology, robotics, communications, and other technologies may well eliminate the need for human labor power, at least in assembly-line mass production, where the industrial proletariat has been trapped since the industrial revolution. Marxists might see this as a form of liberation, since alienated and menial work will cease to be, and all will be freed to do the work of the mind rather than the work of the hands, if they choose. But, their reaction instead is to see post-industrialism as a tactic of class warfare gone genocidal - in late capitalism, the bourgeouis have decided that liquidation of an increasingly racially stratified (i.e., in the U.S., African-American or Third World) and unemployable (i.e., unexploitable) working class has become necessary.

As they see it, these economic historians feel that the wave of factory closings in the 1970s is part of the collapse of capitalism. As capitalists are finding it increasingly difficult to compete in a global market, they are more and more attempting to find their wealth through speculation (the 'junk bonds' and 'merger mania' of the 80s) rather than production. As more and more 'real' goods are made in Third World sweatshops, the capitalists are deindustrializing in the Western countries so as to escape union protection of workers, government regulation, and progressive taxation. "Post-industrialism" really means the internationalization of the capitalist class, who are de-industrializing so as to crush the 'advanced' (First World) proletariat and moving their factories so as to exploit the Third World peasantry. These economic changes - less and less real goods produced, more and more promises made through increasingly sophisticated advertising - and the dying gasps of capitalism are the 'real' roots of postmodernism and its attendant ideas, suggest the Marxist econohistorians.

Unfortunately, there is more to postindustrialism than just that. Key ideas in the postindustrial constellation are 'workplace democracy,' 'etherialization,' 'Green economics,' and 'reconceptualizing vocation.' In the postmodern/postindustrialism's furthest vision, economics itself- the existence of scarcity and the need for calculi of allocation - may cease to exist. 'Workplace democracy' doesn't mean that the State controls the factories - rather, that workers' councils meet to coordinate with management production, labor conditions, and wages, and that these councils have the same decision-making power as management. 'Etherialization' is an extrapolation from the history of miniaturization, but the key idea is that with technology, more and more will be accomplished with less and less, so that the material side of production will continue to diminish. 'Green economics' is a burgeoning field that seeks to rethink concepts of prosperity, wealth, risks & benefits, property, and prices in ecological terms. 'Reconceptualizing vocation' is an idea from Marilyn Ferguson - that vocation be made less of a label and a trap and more of a growth experience, by increasing the flexibility, diversity, and autonomy of work.

There have been many schemes associated with the 'third force' movement to have an economy of relative equality that does not restrict freedom, opportunity, or diversity. In the early 20th century, there were the schemes of Social Credit, and Henry George's plan to eliminate building taxes and tax only land, which Karl Marx called "the last stand of the capitalists," but the landlords and rent collectors hated George more than Marx. And there was the Owenite 'communitarian' movement, which focused on creating voluntary collective ventures. The most recent effort has been Schumacher and Hazel Henderson's New Economics, based on the principle of 'small is beautiful.' Schumacher's economics - "as if people mattered" - is based on the idea that the scale of production may be more important than who owns it. As Schumacher saw it, the diminishing quality of production and labor autonomy was in direct relation to the scale of production. Fordism and mass-assembly-line production was the problem, but Schumacher's critics saw his solution as romantic or even reactionary - returning to small-scale ventures like the old craft guilds where workers once had control over their own labor. Such things might work in the Third World, they said, but in the West, that meant an abandonment of industrial 'progress'.

Postliberalism in politics: the radical 'center'

Postmodernist politicians (more properly, politically conscious postmoderns) claim they hold the coveted Third Way of politics - a way out of the conventional divisions of Left and Right that polarize political thinking. The key terms for postmodern politics are 'participatory democracy,' (grassroots/electronic), 'decentralization,' and 'communitarian individualism.' Its key slogan - familiar to most advocates - is 'think globally, act locally.' Many of the 'postmodernists' in politics describe themselves as 'postliberals,' meaning that they often came to the movement from 60s modernist liberalism after seeing some of its inherent limitations. Others describe this as 'postliberalism' because it is a transcendence (not a rejection) of liberal democracy itself and its limitations. As they see it, it is the 'radical center' position because it is neither Left nor Right, but threatening to the powers that be on both sides, commisars & bureaucrats and capitalists & fat cats.

The advocates of 'participatory democracy' see it as a step beyond pale representative democracy - as a return to the old town meetings of New England where everybody could have their say. Skeptics scoff at this, declaring it impossible to do in a country of 200 million people, but the postmodernists say it could be done through an 'electronic plebiscite.' Many of the mainstream politicians are turning on to this idea, especially former computer man Ross Perot, who wanted to stage 'electronic town hall meetings' on issues all over the country through sattelite hookups. The postmodernists say that what we have now is 'spectacle democracy' - we elect people and then watch passively for four years the dreadful result. 'Participatory democracy' means grassroots citizen activism - that every citizen take an active involvement in the direction of governance - and the making of decisions by consensus (mutual agreement) rather than voting, where the people in the minority feel bullied and overpowered by the majority. Consensus means compromise, but it creates workable solutions.

"Decentralization" just means that power should be dispersed as far and wide as possible - that the less power is held in the center, the more people on the periphery are empowered to change their lives. Decentralists suggest that an important part of this is the growth of NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) which hold governments accountable for their actions, like Amnesty International. Also important are strategies of civil disobedience, as described by Gene Sharp in his Politics of Nonviolent Action , to keep governments responsible and responsive. Decentralists feel that centralized governments of either stripe - Left or Right - rely too much on coercive power, whether that be brute force (military, torture, etc.) or more subtle means (propaganda, imprisonment, etc.) To have a truly nonviolent, participatory society, the power of the centralized government must be reduced and shared with governance at all levels. The centralized government cannot be 'seized' and used for beneficial ends - the centralized State, as Max Weber understood, is primarily an instrument for the monopolization of violence and coercion, and can be nothing but that.

Being the libertarian socialists that they are, most postmodernists support 'communitarian individualism' - the creation of communes or schemes whereby people who want to live cooperatively can, sort of like the kibbutzim of Israel. They support various ways of encouraging community and collective action and concern, as long as they are on a voluntary basis. But many feel taking wealth and redistributing it without asking merely creates resentment against the poor. Many feel the answer to poverty is a full-employment economy, which in their revisionary economics they say is quite possible, and can pay everybody good wages to boot! In any case, they support various forms of rotationary governance, so that everybody in the community gets a shot at running things, for a short while, at the local level. This 'rethinking' of politics by the postmoderns is often seen as idealistic by their critics, 'wooly-headed' at best but 'foolish' at worst, because "it denies human nature..."

Postlogocentrism in philosophy

Most postmodern philosophers entered this terrain through speculations about language, truth, and logic. That is certainly how Derrida, Foucault, and Rorty arrived there. But the roots of postmodern philosophy lie in Nietzsche, Heidegger, the Existentialists, the Situationists, Wittgenstein, and perhaps the theological "Death of G-d" school which created so much attention in 1968. The central project of postmodern philosophy is to challenge the notion of philosophy itself - i.e. the rationalistic ideal of discovering truth through pure reason. Deconstruction, for Derrida, is a radical challenge to the three thousand year history of Western metaphysics and ontology; a gauntlet thrown at the 'logocentrism' which Lacan sees identical with 'phallocentrism' and the 'symbolic order' itself. Most importantly, the postmodernists challenge any philosophy of totalization - one that creates a closure around itself and claims a preeminence in access to universal principles and timeless truths. This is the basis of their critique of Marxism, which they feel contains an (erroneous) metaphysics, eschatology, anthropology (description of man), and notion of reason.

Many philosophers feel uneasy about postlogocentric philosophy because it questions reason and logic itself. Some are put off by its relativism and its willingness to question the notion of truth or meaning itself. As Rorty sees it, in direct defiance of the analytic philosphers, there are no statements which make purely abstract truth-claims, only statements which make references to a type of truth, whether that be scientific truth, metaphoric truth, mythic truth, or humanistic truth. Many postmodern philosophers lean to an epistemology of constructivism - that reality is created through our categories of understanding and our modes of organizing perception- and to a denial of ontology itself, that there are somehow things 'out there' which 'exist'. Others see the root of the problem in Aristotelian logical binarism, as Korzybski did, which could not see that there might be things which are partially true or partially false, and that in every case to say that X 'is' Y 'is' a partial lie.

Mainly, the key element of postmodern philosophy is the 'linguistic turn.' Like Wittgenstein, the postmodernists see the root of many philosophical problems in the use (and misuse) of language. Derrida sees the root of much of philosophical binarism in the (arbitrary) division and prioritization of writing and speech. Many take the insight of Whorf and Sapir and the sociolinguists - that how we speak about the world shapes our experience of it. If one understands fully Derrida's explorations of 'play' in language and the 'referent problem,' then they may realize that any statement may contain an inexhuastible number of meanings. Like this one. Or this one. And based on that fact, there are therefore a multiple number of ways of viewing the world and experiencing it. Some cultural relativists take this understanding to mean that the ontologies of other cultures are no less valid than that of Western society, even if Westerners cannot experience them or understand them. In any case, as postmodernists see it, any semiotic system can have the 'reference' problem, because the signifier is always 'slipping' toward another signified.

Some in this school of thought, like Jakobson or Lacan, see the origins of consciousness and human identity in language itself. Many postmodernists feel that this is taking things too far, that subjectivity has deeper origins than just in the use of interchangeable pronouns or terms of possession. Lacan himself borrows from many of Freud's early writings on the "Freudian slip" to suggest that the origins of the unconscious are in language itself - that the unconscious precisely is the inability of the mind to grasp unintended meanings in language. In any case, the postmodernists who are followers of Foucault believe that the key factor in shaping human experience is 'discourse' - the setting of boundaries for which statements are meaningful and which are not. As Foucault sees it, discourses are not wholly arbitrary, but they can have a 'geneaology' which is often quite unexpected and not according to some rationalistic evolution. Foucault looks at the geneaology of 'justice,' for example, and he takes to task rationalist philosophers who see nothing but increasing precision, logic, and civility in its evolution of the concept and its usage.

Postpatriarchalism in society

Feminist postmodernists feel that postmodernity, most importantly, represents an end to patriarchy and to the masculine hierarchical/vertical principle. For Kristeva and some other postmoderns, that means an end as well to history, to gender, and perhaps even to the subject (i.e. the Self, itself.) Some feminist postmoderns are less extreme, but they do feel that the divisions of gender binarism - like other metaphysical dualities in Western thought - may be put under 'erasure' once problems of language are grasped: such as why the gender-neutral pronouns are all really masculine. For others, it is the dominance of 'logocentrism' - which is really the reign of the phallus - that has cut us off from authentic existence. The 'phallocentric' world we inhabit denies and represses somatic experience, emphasizes the distance of vision over the closeness of other senses, attaches to the universal/general/abstract rather than the particular/singular/concrete, and as a result represses femininity and opresses women. In particular, they resent the 'modernist' feminists who felt that all that was needed for female equality was the vote, corporate careers, and the ERA.

There are other femininists who balk at this type of talk, because it sounds a lot like the 'essentialism' that patriarchy used to enslave women - they are too 'emotional', 'passive', 'dependent', etc. to succeed in a man's world. But the postmodern feminists insist: why make wom(y)n fit into a man's world? Rather to remake the world! Some feel that science, business, and governance would have been vastly different enterprises if women has been present and had a greater voice at their inception. Other more extreme postmodern feminists see all three as hierarchical, and that in a postpatriarchal society there would be entirely new forms of knowledge generation, economic organization, etc, which will not resemble at all what we have now. Riane Eisler describes this alternative model as a 'partnership society,' which she contrasts with our existing 'dominator society.'

Many postmodernists do not resist the charge of 'essentialism,' as long as it is understood from a nominalist perspective! As they see it, women are fundamentally less violent, power-hungry, and - as Carol Gilligan argues - amoral - than men. This has nothing to do with biology or evolution as the sociobiologists explain it. Rather, this is a consequence of their position in the symbolic and social order and thousands of years of socialization. Instead of denying this fact or accepting it as a weakness, the postmodernist feminists want to begin with it as a cornerstone of bringing feminine values (nurturance, etc.) to overthrow masculinist values (violence, etc.) Some postmodern feminists feel the beginning point for postpatriarchy is undoing the symbolic order itself. Whether this means an end to language, or simply its complete remaking, is not clear. What is clear is that postmodern feminists do not want to replace patriarchy with matriarchy - taking the same hierarchical model and putting women at the top. Rather, the whole social order will have to be undone to ensure true female equality.

Many of the postmodern feminists take Eisler's theory to be true - that at some point in the past, men and women did live as equals, and that patriarchy and history began at the agricultural revolution, with its attendant division of labor. Marija Gimbutas argues that in Europe's prehistory, its settled Chthonic societies were Earth goddess-worshipping and mostly egalitarian. Then the Kurgan nomads of the Asian steppes brought warfare, the horse, and a series of male sky, thunder, and sun-gods. That was the beginning of patriarchy and all the known historical civilizations - Greece, Rome, Babylon, etc. Some postmodern feminists feel that patriarchy is a rude 7000 year intrusion into aeons of equality. By overthrowing patriarchy, then, the human race can get back into where it should be going. Of course, the critics of this belief do point out that those 7000 years of oppression followed aeons of very slow social and technological change and even stagnation... and feel that the feminists want to return us to that round-of-being cosmology where nothing moves forward because nothing can.

Conclusions: problems of postmodernity

There are many problems in postmodernism. At various turns, it has been accused of being romantic, idealistic, unrealistic, wooly-headed, and so forth. But there are those who feel it is truly dangerous. Do the postmoderns mean to put an end to progress itself, to consign us all to a steady-state Utopia where all needs may be provided for but there is no room for growth, change, or movement? Some buckle at such an existence. Is it merely a step backwards, to chucking all our agricultural, scientific, and industrial revolutions aside, and going back to swinging in the trees? The postmoderns say no, they want to move forward in a way that utilizes the insights of the past but is not identical to it. Their struggle is to fight the vast totalizing schemes, like Comtean positivist history, which have been imposed on our historical existence and command our destiny. Postmodernism is at once a rejection of teleology, yet it contains in itself some teleological notions of "where things are going." A bundle of contradictions, an enigma within an enigma, it may be impossible to ever grasp Lyotard's "postmodern mood" and hold it up to the light.

Is it really possible to see the origins of the postmodern ideology in the changing social and economic structures of our time? Is it all basically the ruling idea of a new ruling class - the information czars and advertising moguls of America's Sunbelt overthrowing the industrial barons of the North, as some have argued? Why is it, then, that the key ideas of postmodernism seem to be coming from Europe and being imported to America wholesale, via Baudrillard, Lyotard, Derrida, and Foucault, et al.? Is it because modernism - especially Levi-Straussian structuralism, artistic modernism (a la Picasso, Mondrian, etc.), and architectural modernism (the Eiffel Tower: need one say more) - started there also? If liberal progress is at an end, is postmodernism at the root of racial reaction, religious fundamentalism, ethnic and nationalistic retrenchment, feminist 'backlash', and other "backward strides of history" as some critics have suggested? Was the New Left the last grasp for modernist/Enlightenment optimism, or the first wave of postmodern/post-Marxist pessimism?

Postmodernists have often accused Marxists of having a critique of society but no real way of changing it because they ignore the 'superstructure' of society. The same could be said of postmodernism: while the world has had some Marxist states, no one so far has even suggested what a postmodern state would look like, if it was a state at all. The postmodernists seem to be giving hints that all societies on the planet are moving postmodernally - that is to say, toward not moving at all, in terms of 'progress' - with or without any "postmodernists" in charge. The problem with trying to figure out what the postmodernists would do if they were 'running the show' is nobody knows who they are. There are people pointing to trends, shifts, and changes, but nobody claims to be making them, let alone seeking the 'revolution' to bring them about. Are they merely the prophets of postmodernity or its priests? Derrida won't say what his role is: to lead us out of history or to merely point the way out. It is a role befitting a master magician.

The Living Legacy-- the Soul in Paraphrase

I am very pleased to be able to announce that a project which has taken a lifetime of thought and meditation and writing has finally seen the light of day. Most of you know I have been a published poet since I was very young indeed, but there has never been a collection of my poems--- until now.

The Living Legacy is in fact a companion volume to my volume of sermons, Incandescence, and like the latter it is arranged according to the Christian year, beginning with poems for Advent, then Christmas, then Epiphany, then Lent, and so on. Also like that volume Julie Noelle Hare (ne Robertson) has provided the spiritual formation and lectio divina materials which are reflections on my poems. There is also with each of the 50 some poems, my own theological reflections on them, and to cap matters off, three other Asburians have helped out. Ellsworth Kalas, Asbury's President has written a personal introduction and the Dean of our Chapel, J.D. Walt, has written a splendid introduction on the nature and importance of Christian poets and their poetry. The piece d' resistance is however the beautiful freehand drawings of Rick Danielson, another Asburyian who was a D. Min. student of ours and now pastors in upstate N.Y.

Aesthetically and personally this is the most beautiful and intimate of all my books, where I hang out to dry some of the deeper reflections of my soul or heart. As Emily Dickinson said... "judge tenderly of me." I believe you will find this an excellent spiritual formation tool, useful to be used for daily or periodic devotions and meditations.

Here is the link to the book at the publisher's website, where it is offered most cheaply and without tax. Let me know what you think. Be blessed and may your soul be fed, your mind challenged, your spirit uplifted by this book. BW3

http://wipfandstock.com/store/The_Living_Legacy_The_Soul_in_Paraphrase_The_Heart_in_Pilgrimage