Sermons

CONTENTMENT NOVEMBER 2020

In Shakespeare’s tragedy, King Lear, the description of the times as “the winter of our discontent” well characterizes our own culture. How can you be content in a culture of discontent. There’s nothing like discontent for suffocating and silencing our thanksgiving.

The teaching of Jesus (Matthew 6:24-34; Luke 12:15-21) and of Paul (Philippians 4:10-13; 1 Timothy 6:3-10) is foundational to our understanding. What was Paul’s secret about how to be “content in any and every situation.” The context here is that Paul had received a gift of money from the Philippians through Epaphroditus. He knows what it is to be in need, what it feels like. The fact is that circumstances affect us but the extent to which a PREDICAMENT will affect us is determined by our PERSPECTIVE. How we MANAGE such circumstances will be dependent on what we MIND. Paul was concerned that the Philippians understood the following: that he was sincerely thankful for their gift, but that if it had not come, his life and work would not have been entirely dependent on their provision. He would have remained fruitful and joyful. He wanted them to know that his real sense of need and neglect had not brought with it a sense of discontent that had affected his love for them and relationship with them; the demands and expectations we put on others can bring such discontent to our lives and theirs, when we become so person-dependent. He was actually much more interested in their spiritual advantage than his material support. The supply of his needs NOW was nothing compared to the credit they would receive from Christ when they gave an account of their stewardship THEN.

 

Together, Paul and the Philippians supply an antidote to discontent. Paul does so through the fact that the gift was not the source of his contentment, and the Philippians, through the fact of their giving, especially since they were poor. They refused to succumb to the priority of their own need and in their giving overcame discontent. “There is one act par excellence which profanes money by going directly against the law of money, an act for which money is not made. This act is giving.” (Jacques Ellul) Paul said, “I have learned…. To be content…” The word he uses here for “learned” is a technical expression that was used to describe the instruction of initiation rites, implying a severe degree of difficulty, of a course of experience that was not a natural choice. Paul’s learning was not just something he’d picked up through a patchwork experience of tough times and hard knocks. The tense used here is that this learning was a once and for all experience in a definite point of time, which then opened up the possibility of a continuance of this same experience in all circumstances, whether good or bad. Paul puts this experience in the context of our salvation no less. It was the change of heart that salvation wrought that changed his perspective, that taught him how to be content now in whatever circumstance because his life no longer consisted in the stuff, or in the feelings, or in the circumstantial securities. This means we cannot say that contentment is only possible for those who are thus temperamentally suited: more placid and passive, less demanding, more holy. Contentment is presented as a fruit of our salvation. Contentment is not an elective, not an option. This is why the Puritans called it a “necessary lesson.” And now we understand why Paul stressed it was “through Christ” because he can take no credit for his contentment as if it was particular to his ability or spirituality.

 

In summary, this is what we can say about contentment from this passage thus far: it is a necessary evidence of conversion, a supernatural and not a natural characteristic and response, and a necessary choice because it is an expectation of our heavenly Father. I need to reference the use of one more word, namely the word content. Again, this is a word, like “learned” that Paul rescued from non-Christian usage, for it was the word that described the self-sufficiency of the Stoics. However, Paul changes its meaning for clearly it now has to do with God-sufficiency, but nonetheless, there is an emphasis here on what is truly within him, the resident Holy Spirit, the abiding Christ, the kingdom of God. There is immediate provision for the circumstance and it is within, not because it is self-derived like the Stoics, but Christ-empowered like the saints. Paul could handle the freezing temperatures on the outside because of the heating on the inside. The ship was righted in the storm, not because of an array of external ropes and props but because of the ballast within. Paul is separating the Christian attitude of mind here from that of the Stoic: the bite your lip, tough it out, bear it and grin it syndrome. This is not about RESOLUTION but about RELIANCE. It is utterly Christ-generated. This is not about toughing it out, but trusting it out. It is not about how we relate to the circumstance primarily, but how we relate to Christ.

 

Will you join me in praying that our thanksgiving will never flounder on the rocks of discontent. That like Paul we will realize that contentment is a supernatural and spiritually learned behavior. That we will realize that contentment is not just an issue at times of adversity but a state of heart and mind for all times. Edith Schaeffer described the ingredients of contentment “like the raw fibers that we can weave moment by moment into a fabric of contentment.” There are so many things that seek to snare, tag and tear those fibers apart (complaint, complexities, comforts, complacency, comparisons, competitiveness, compulsions, compromise) but also many things that tighten and strengthen the weave (dying to self, dependence, devotion, discernment, discipline, discretion, dedication, delight). At the end of the day Paul was right. We can be content while yet pressing forward for more of God. At the end of the day the psalmist was right. We can be like the deer that pants for water – never dissatisfied but always unsatisfied, because of the desire for God Himself more than anything else. As John Bunyan put it:

I am content with what I have

                           Little be it or much

And Lord contentment still I crave

Because thou savest such.

 

Pastorally yours,

Stuart McAlpine

 

(This cannot be reprinted without permission.)

 

 

GREAT GRACE OCTOBER 2020

What follows are some notes that will hopefully serve you as a useful study outline about some the specific workings of grace in our lives. I am trying to capture the range of New Testament descriptions that are behind Jude’s concern about false teachers “who pervert the grace of God” (Jude v4). I’ve provided the alliteration for good measure for free – a gracious act indeed!

1.   Saving grace: “saved through grace” (Acts 15:11); “It is by grace you have been saved – this is not from yourselves – it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). But part of this experience of saving grace is the instruction we receive for the totality of our lives. Listen to how Paul describes it: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say NO to ungodliness and worldly passions and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in the present age, while we wait for the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titrus 2:11) Do you see then that when Jude says that they change the grace, then what goes out the window is the instruction in righteousness that is the work of grace in us.

2.   Securing or grace: “this grace in which we stand” (Romans 5:1-2); “the true grace of God. Stand firm in it” (1Peter 5:12). Grace secures us, or we could call this strengthening grace: “the word of his grace which can build you up” (Acts 20:32).

3.   Sanctifying grace: this is grace’s work in growing, maturing, promoting, encouraging and effecting our progress in faith and holy godliness, in pleasing God. Paul describes his conduct and character: “We have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relationships with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God’s grace” (2 Corinthians 1:12).

4.   Serving or stewarding grace: “Use your gifts to serve others as faithful stewards of God’s grace” (1 Peter 4:10). “The grace God gave me to be a minister”  (Acts 15:15). This is the enablement to minister – the charismata – the grace gifts. Listen to Paul’s summation of ministry in his farewell to the Ephesians elders: “If only I may finish the race and complete the task…of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace” (Acts 20:24).

5.   Sharing grace: “Grace given to me for you…” (Ephsesians 3:2); “all of you share in God’s grace with me” (Philippians 1:7).

6.   Sending grace: the callings of God, commending to the word of His grace. Paul’s testimony: “God called me … by His grace and was pleased to reveal His Son in me” (Galatians 1:15)

7.   Supplicating grace: “Spirit of grace and supplication…” (Zecheriah 12:10). “Throne of grace … find grace to help us in our time of need” (Hebrews 4:16). The result of prayer was that “much grace was upon them” (Acts 4:33).

8.   Supporting or supplying grace: B.B. Warfield, the great reformed Princeton theologian, speaking on Acts 9:1, noted how Paul was prepared by prayer for the reception of grace through Ananias. Thus the Spirit of grace prepares for the provision of grace through prayer. Prayer “adjusts the heart for the influx of grace” (Warfield).

9.   Speaking grace: “Grace those who listen” (Ephesians 4:29). “Let your conversation always be full of grace, seasoned with salt”  (Colossians4:6). This is about favor as well as flavor! It is so crucial that this grace is expressed through us in a culture of contempt and anger. Are you surprised that when they changed grace the speech of the false teachers in Jude is “speaking abusively … grumblers … faultfinders … they boast … and flatter”. All preaching of the gospel is speaking grace: “the message of His grace … good news of God’s grace … the word of His grace … grace is reaching more and more people” (Acts 14:3, 20:24, 20:32; 2 Corinthians 4:15).

10. Singing grace: “With psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, with grace in your hearts to God” (Colossian 4:16). The hymnody and psalmody, formal and informal, liturgical and non-liturgical, ancient and modern – all of grace that must be turned into gratitude in song and antiphon. The range of grace requires more range of human intonation as our heart wants to give all the keys of its grateful piano to God. If you are dull to worship you are dull to grace.

11. Sustaining grace: this is about special times of need –  “My grace is sufficient for you and my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians12:9). “Let us approach the throne of grace … and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Hebrews 4:16) “God gives grace to the humble” (1Peter 5:5).

12. Staying grace: By staying here I’m not referring to the idea of an abiding grace, though it is, but in the sense of staying the hand of judgment. I would add this one because the grace of God is not just manifested in what He does do, but in what He doesn’t do – for example, not judge by delaying judgment. Maybe I can stretch something else under this category. God’s grace is manifest in what He gives and allows, in what He provides, but it is also in what He disallows, what He prohibits. The word that commands us ‘not to’, is a staying word of grace. Stop! Halt! No further! Do not transgress! Do not move that boundary! Thou shalt not! (It is crucial to understand the law as an expression of God’s love and grace. He loves us so much that He commands us not to engage that which He knows will destroy us and separate us from Him.) In Genesis: all the trees (provision) except (prohibition). These are equally evidences of grace. The fall is fundamentally a sin against grace. There is grace in giving, but also grace in the staying of things, the with-holding, the taking away of those things that are not going to promote spiritual growth in grace. Again, in Jude, if you remove the grace of God in its truth, you remove the commands of God.

13. Suffering grace: grace often brings God’s goodness in a way that doesn’t at first feel good to us. “It has been granted (literally-graced) for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in him but to suffer for him” (Philippians 1:29).

14. Suffusing (well up from within) grace: “the grace that is in me” says Paul - the grace that dwells within – the indwelling spirit of grace that rises within us, that “overflows” again to use Paul’s language. This grace that changes us, that makes us in turn, gracious.

15. Sovereign grace: “grace might reign through righteousness..” (Romans 5:21) Now you can see that if grace goes, the belief in the sovereignty of Christ goes with it.

16. Surpassing grace: “the surpassing grace God has given … the incomparable riches of His grace … the grace of the Lord was poured out abundantly” (2 Corinthians 9:14; Ephesians 2:7; 1 Timothy 1:14). The depths and breadths of grace cannot be measured, cannot be plumbed, cannot be contained.

 

How awful is it then to sin against, to try to change, this saving, securing, sanctifying, serving, sustaining, sharing, sending, supplicating, supporting, supplying, speaking, singing, staying, suffering, suffusing, sovereign grace. Clearly, just these few scriptural quotes that I have given are sufficient to dispel any notion that grace is sweetly benign, or is something that is helpful now and again. Grace is not a commodity, a thing – but the very active and engaging presence and personality of God in our lives and circumstances. Invasion, infusion is what we should be thinking about. To sin against grace is to sin against the very nature and heart of God.  Grace’s power, its penetration, its communication – every expression is proactively an expression of the nature of God ministering to the needs of man – it is strong grace according to the NT. It is a strong brew, and those who experience it are grace intoxicated, but more importantly, God-centered and God adoring. This leads me to an important final but foundational point. If you like, grace is self-effacing. It points away from itself to the giver of grace.  What is grace about, that the false teachers just don’t get? After all the purposes it serves that I’ve just mentioned, all its glorious operations, I can put it even more precisely. Is grace just for us? Is it all about us?  In a word grace is for God.

 

Let me explain it in a way that helps you understand the nature of Jude’s zeal against false teachers “who pervert the grace of our God” (Jude v.4). One of the repeated words in conjunction with these false teachers in Jude was “themselves” (12, 16). Their lives are all about “their own” desires (16); for “their own advantage” (16). We live in a self-absorbed culture, including Christian culture. Our decisions are suited to what works best for us, pleases us, conforms to our preferences, supports our traditions and perceptions, fits our comfort zones. This is true of how we often choose our churches, our missions, our vocations, and how we express our spirituality. This raises an important point. Do we need God in order to experience this grace we need, or do we need grace in order to experience the God we desire. John Piper has put it this way: “Is the ultimate treasure the grace of God or the God of grace?” This is a key question he is asking, and it all has to do with who is at the center. What is the ultimate object and purpose of grace? To gratify me or to glorify God? Is the main issue that I receive grace’s works or that God receives my grateful, because graceful, worship?

 

As simple and foundational as this is, it is the most ignored truth. All doctrines start with the doctrine of God (e.g. evangelism – His nature before human need). This is true for the doctrine of grace. Again, quoting Piper: “We cherish grace because it brings us to God, rather than cherishing God because He brings us grace.” In other words, our worship is about the God of grace, not primarily about the work of grace described by all those fine words beginning with “S”! Every which way you look at grace, any description of grace, the ultimate purpose is a revelation of who God is. Grace is utterly God-horizoned, God-focused, God-centered. Grace’s ultimate homing instinct is the glory of God. He is totally self-sufficient so

 grace to us is this brilliant overflow of His life. Grace is not pipetted or rationed or given in small portions – it is always amazing, always huge, always extravagant.  When God’s life and love wash over us, spill over us, soak into us, we call it grace. Grace is not other to Himself. We often limit our understanding of grace to the particular provision or answer or deliverance that we get. No the grace is Himself – for that is always the best that He can give. In any case, God being God, is moved by His nature, His gracious and compassionate and loving nature, to continually show Himself, give Himself away, reveal Himself so He can be known. Now do you understand the heinous and blasphemous nature of the sin against grace? It is the rejection of the personhood of God no less. And Jude presents this not as some kind of intellectual theological atheism but as awful unholiness that defies God’s personality and breaks relationship.

 

Here endeth the notes.

 

Pastorally yours,

Stuart McAlpine

 

(This cannot be reprinted without permission.)

 

 

 

HOPE OF OUR FATHER - SEPTEMBER 2020

Do you know your family? In Romans 4 Abraham is described as our father in the faith, and how he is presented there gives us an anatomy of biblical hope.

 

Our father in the faith and in the hope

1.   Hope is about a Person: Everything is “in the sight of God, in whom he believed” (4:17). Our hope is all about who God is.

a.   before Him: hope is utterly related to the dependability of God. It is not about my insight but about being in His sight. It is not about my perspective on the future but on the assurance of God’s presence there as well as here.

b.   In whom: this is not about the grade of our hope or faith, but about the goal of our hope, to believe in Him, and to forever be with Him. Hope limits itself only to what God Himself promises.

2.   Hope is about a Promise: “I have made you … Abraham in hope believed.” (4:17-18) Our faith is first in the One who promised, and then we exercise our hope in what was promised, but the ‘what’ never displaces the ‘who’. When there is nothing to go on, there is something to stand on. In the words of the hymn: Standing on the promises that cannot fail / When the howling storms of doubt and fear assail / By the living word of God I shall prevail / Standing on the promises of God. “I have made you…” (promise) is followed by “in whom he believed, the God who gives life to the dead” (hope) and concludes with  “Abraham … became” (fulfillment).

3.   Hope is about a Persuasion: “Being fully persuaded” (4:21). Where there was no conceivable hope (literally!) Abraham did not allow the facts of what he saw by sight (“that his body was as good as dead”) to overcome the holy facts of faith. The text says that he “faced the fact” but did not weaken or waver. It was a matter of fact, not a matter of fate. Hope did not deny the reality or the state of his virility or Sarah’s fertility. The New Testament nowhere plays down suffering and trial in order to elevate hope. On the contrary, as we have seen, they so often seem to be found in the same context. We are called to an unthreatened examination of the facts and to the unintimidated exercise of faith in the future facts that God has promised for us. As the saying goes, “Weak faith on thick ice is better than strong faith on thin ice.”

4.   Hope is about a Provision: This deserves a full treatment, but there are endless products of hope in God’s future promise that are reaped in our present life. Strength and effectiveness of present discipleship is utterly contingent on our biblical hope. Abraham reaped present blessings as a result of his future hope. The birth of Isaac was not the full fulfillment of the promise. You could argue that until Jacob was born it was all up in the air. How interesting then that Isaac and Rebekah had trouble conceiving and also had to learn first-hand what it was to hope in nothing but the promises of God about their future. We cannot spare ourselves this calling to hope. We were saved in hope, have entered a living hope and so will never be apart from it. A study of the provisions of hope in the present will reap great benefits for you. For example:

a.   Listen to Peter: He is committed to serve “as long as I live in the tent of this body because I know I will soon put it aside” (2 Peter1:13). It is because of the hope of what is to come that he is aware of the temporary nature of this life and therefore the need to escape the corruption of the world caused by evil desires and live a cleansed life. Hope provides both a motivation to change our life but also an empowerment to do so. Peter is also motivated to serve the Lord with “every effort.”

b.   Listen to Paul In Titus 2:1-13, Paul lists many manifestations of godliness in those who seek to adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. The common mark of these people is that they are “looking for the blessed hope”. Biblical hope will totally affect how we steward our lives – “our talents, our time and our treasures.” You could argue that the differing qualities and strengths of believers’ discipleship are calibrated by their convictions about biblical hope.

c.    Listen to Jesus: “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:19-20). The hope of heaven as a spiritual habit of mind, a “supernatural orientation” as Harry Blamires described it, settles the issues about what we value, and how we make decisions about what we invest in. It will also help us decide what we divest as of no usefulness in the work of the kingdom of God.

 

The biblical presentation of the challenges and choices of Abraham when it came to trusting the promises of God, believing in hope, hoping against hope and being persuaded that God had power to do what was promised, remains the curriculum for our own walk of hope. As his spiritual progeny, we should expect the same fruit in our lives as he experienced in his: strengthening in our faith and an explosion of continual glory to God. Hope fuels our work for God and our worship of God. Not only was his obedience at Mount Moriah a prophetic preview, a pre-run, of the sacrifice that would secure the hope of our salvation in and through Jesus’ death, but his refusal to lose his mind in response to the incursion of potential hopelessness, meant that he “reasoned that God could raise the dead.” Thus Abraham’s hope not only foresaw the cross, but also the resurrection, the conviction that was the ground of his hope, and the ground of ours. With Abraham, we will share the experience of what the resurrection of Jesus secured – our secure hope that we too shall be raised. Here’s hoping!

 

Hopefully yours,

Stuart McAlpine

 

(This cannot be reprinted without permission.)

 

 

 

RECOVERING PHILEMON - AUGUST 2020

When we come to the New Testament letter of Philemon, we take the first step in all inductive Bible Study which we call ‘OBSERVATION’, necessary before we deal with ‘INTERPRETATION’ and ‘APPLICATION’. This includes paying attention to the background to the text and to its context. Compared to other epistles, Philemon is not so much a letter – more a postcard!  However, though it is short in length it long in the discussion it provokes. The single page that it occupies in our Bibles has incited a voluminous commentary. You could spend weeks dissecting the text but it is important to discern the broad brush strokes that help to illuminate the non-negotiable biblical truths that must be brought to bear whenever there is a need for the reconciliation of broken and severed relationships, whether between brothers, between spouses, between races, between slave master and slave. We are in the process of uploading hundreds of hours of teaching, including a mini-series on Philemon, in which you will be able to catch up on the task of observation: the responses to the text, the writer, the writing, the readers, the reason, the relevance. Philemon must be contextualized in both the history of race relationships in our nation, as well as in the history of interpretation that has affected relationships in the church.

 

Because this letter has been used defensively by opposing sides in the long struggle for abolition and civil rights, its provenance needs to be addressed in any biblical discussion about race in America, simply because race and slavery are inseparable in our history. It would appear to most that there are two major issues that the apostles did not appear to politically oppose: war and slavery. However, what they did do was make two things clear:

1.   It is the responsibility of, and in the power of, Christians to effect changes for the good.

2.   It is the responsibility of, and in the power of, Christians to endure manifestations of evil.

The only way slavery could be overthrown in Paul’s time was by bloody, violent revolution. It is estimated that a third of the Roman population in Italy were slaves and that up to 60% of the population in Corinth had been at some time, or were presently, slaves. Paul does not step into the public political arena to debate slavery, but what he does in these early days of the establishment of Christianity, is bring the issue into the context of the local church, the context of personal discipleship and Christian responsibility, the context of the gospel of Jesus Christ. So instead of some generalized rhetoric about the slave issue, this short letter presents a very specific gospel appeal to a very personal problem. Thus a tiny letter to an unknown home-group becomes a time bomb for change, and it is no wonder its message has been twisted and suppressed by those who oppose the reconciling work of Christ, and why for centuries many have questioned its place in the canon. Saint Jerome of the 4th century didn’t beat about the bush: “There is nothing in it for our edification.”

I pointed out that concerns and even objections to the text have sources much closer to home, particularly in the tradition of interpretation in the African-American church that directly counters the established tradition that was influenced by John Chyrysostom in the 4th century, and that was influentially represented in North America by the writings of Cotton Mather, that essentially saw the Christianization of slaves as a way to better the system of slavery, not to abolish it. This was the difference between Whitfield and Wesley. You can hear Chrysostom’s conclusions in Mather’s comments: “Those masters who use their negroes with most Christianity … will find themselves no losers by it.” Mather argued that Christianity “wonderfully dulcifies and mollifies and moderates the circumstances of bondage.” So now the master is doing the slave a favor for which they should be grateful! To those who were having problems with their slaves he commented: “Had they done more to make their negroes willing servants of God” then it may be that “God would have made their negroes better servants of them.” It’s all about improving slavery for the masters’ sakes. This explains why ‘negro’ is a totally unacceptable word and is not a euphemism for ‘black’. It is a slave designation. Mather’s exposition became the dominant one in North America, which ended up supporting the politics and economics of slavery. One historian has commented that that this interpretation of Philemon was “a biblical weapon in the arsenal of the Christian slave-holder.” There were three immediate consequences of this for many churches:

1.   There was never any reason to oppose slavery as an institution.

2.   Slaves were meant to be obedient and not protest.

3.   Slave-holders could happily exist in the Christian community.

The antebellum pro-slavery advocates described Philemon as “the Pauline Mandate” of American slavery. Furthermore, the interpretation sanctioned the Fugitive Slave Law, essentially that slaves were but property, thus chattel slavery, and the owners had a right to recover their property. Paul was seen as sending a fugitive back to his master. The response to all of this by Allen Dwight Callahan, a leading African-American New Testament  scholar, is to the point: that this is nothing less than “a racialized colonialist reading.” It also ought to be added that the gospel consequences for slaves coming to Christ was not lost on some, and thus the ‘evangelism’ justification for slavery quietly melted into silence, as it did not help the slave-masters’ cause.

There is a context for this text that has to be considered, given the nature of the institution of slavery and given the interpretation of this letter in church history. As far as the institution is concerned, it is important in the course of discussing the text, to understand the culture of Graeco-Roman slavery that Paul had experienced in his life and travels, and was now addressing. It was very different in so many crucial ways from the institution of slavery as it was established in the formative years of North America. This is important, because there is no way, given these differences, that any Christian in the antebellum south could possibly have treated their chattel slavery as the same as Onesimus’ enslavement, and therefore being possibly endorsed in any shape and form by Philemon. There was no possible comparison and any attempt to argue a similitude is simply false exegesis. The better life-styles and opportunities for advance and freedom and for relationship in a household that were experienced by Graeco-Roman slaves, does not justify or exonerate slaveholders at Paul’s time, whether Christian or non-Christian, but it does lead one to think that if Paul was addressing his current slavery issues as he did, how much more would he have expressed his vehement outrage at American slavery.

 

African-American New Testament scholar, Lloyd Lewis, an esteemed professor of New Testament at Virginia Theological Seminary in Alexandria, (till his retirement in 2012), has a seminal essay on Philemon is in a collection of studies titled “Stony the road we trod” (edited by yet another honored local African-American professor, Cain Hope Felder of the School of Divinity at Howard University.) The title was chosen because the phrase epitomized, not only the struggle of slaves, but the struggle of African-American biblical scholars, given that a doctorate in theology was a lesser traveled road. (As you know, the phrase comes from what is known as “The Negro National Anthem: Lift every voice and sing” by James Weldon Johnson. The beginning of the second stanza reads: “Stony the road we trod, bitter the chastening rod, felt in the days when hope unborn had died.”)

 

Professor Lewis talks of Paul as “more bane than blessing” and it is the letter of Philemon that in particular is “a good example of the issue of conflict between a text and the methodology of its interpretation.” He is then specific about how it is “odious to many black exegetes by its ambiguous position on slavery.” What is the fall-out? Philemon is “a letter that black people have heard as a proof text to justify slavery in the past and to some extent, racial bigotry in the present.” But Lewis argues strongly that if Paul’s language and argumentation is truly understood, then there is “a chance for black exegetes to claim Philemon as their own and as an indication of good news and of a new arrangement for blacks.” Coming to a heartening conclusion, he writes: “I believe that African-American people who study the Bible and who are concerned with issues of human freedom and liberation can take heart from Paul.”

 

Pastorally yours,

Stuart McAlpine

 

(This cannot be reprinted without permission.)