Reading Amos

January 2, 2013

How might a migrant worker convict luxurious homeowners about their oppressive lifestyles? What might a poor, rural believer say to wealthy, urban idolaters?

Amos was neither trained as a prophet nor assumed the career of a prophet. He was a shepherd near the Judean wilderness six miles SE of Bethlehem in the backwater village of Tekoa. He supplemented his income through cultivating sycamore-fig trees (probably as a kind of migrant worker since they did not grow in the area of Tekoa). He was, most likely, a poor man and certainly so by the standards of the ruling elite in Israel. Nevertheless, he was, for a brief time, Yahweh’s voice out of Zion (Jerusalem) to the northern kingdom of Israel.

He ventured into Israel sometime prior to the great earthquake that rocked Israel around 760 BCE. The destruction was so devastating that not only is there evidence of it in Hazor’s archeological record, but the earthquake became part of Palestine’s living memory . Zechariah 14:5 uses it as a metaphor for the Day of the Lord some 250 years after it happened. It was for ancient Palestinian Jews what the 1755 Lisbon earthquake was for Europe.

The 760s, however, were a time of prosperity and peace.  Jeroboam II (786-746 BCE) ruled over the northern kingdom while Uzziah (783-742 BCE) reigned over Judah. Jeroboam II had the longest reign of any northern king and Uzziah had the second longest of any king of Judah. Together their reigns approximated the “golden age” of Solomon himself in terms of territory, building projects and economic trade.  They lived in peace as Assyria had suppressed Syria (Aram) even as Assyria’s imperial designs were interrupted by internal troubles. Israel and Judah developed their economies and expanded their borders.

Peace and prosperity, however, did not form a just and faithful nation. On the contrary, wealth was increasingly located in the hands of the few and the elite. Instead of thanking Yahweh, they thanked other gods for their blessings. Whereas their blessings should have blessed all, the wealthy consumed their blessings rather than sharing them.

The shepherd Amos went from his rural environs near Tekoa to the heartland of Israel’s ruling elite in Bethel and Samaria. His message decries injustice, oppression and idolatry. He announces Israel’s future–one of both judgment and hope.

How do the poor speak a word from God to the rich? How does a lowly shepherd address the ruling elite about the plight of their nation? What might that address say for us?

That is why we read Amos.  We stand with Amos as he speaks against injustice and idolatry. Yes, we want to stand with the prophet.  But we will miss the message if we do not become Amos’ audience as well. We must hear Amos as those who live in luxury with more wealth than we need. We must see ourselves as Amos’ audience if we are to be convicted by his words. Otherwise we will simply make excuses and judge that his words do not apply–much like Israel itself responded to Amos.

The ancient words of Amos address us. We may not live in 760′s Palestine–and the cultural differences are enormous, but we–especially middle class to upper class Americans–share a similar social location that gave rise to the prophet’s mission.

Prosperity often creates spiritual apathy along with greed and covetousness (as we always want more). If nothing else, the words of Amos warn us that prosperity is only a blessing if it is acknowledged with gratitude and shared.  Otherwise it becomes the root of greed, injustice and oppression.

How we hear Amos will probably say more about our own hearts than it does anything else.

5 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

David Lipscomb on Voting

November 5, 2012

David Lipscomb’s opposition to participation in civil government is perhaps well-known. He is, in some ways, a Christian anarchist. This arises both from his experience in the Civil War but also out of his kingdom theology which envisions the kingdom of God destroying all human ruling authorities through Jesus Christ. Consequently, Lipscomb was a pacifist and refused to participate in any human governement. His argument is fully articulated in his Civil Government. 

His position was thoroughly discussed through the pages of the Gospel Advocate through the last quarter of the 20th century, and his position was thoroughly rejected during WWII (with Foy E. Wallace, Jr. leading the way). Ultimtely, the Churches of Christ became almost wholly alligned with the political interests of the ruling majority in the last half of the 20th century with some significant exceptions.

The below piece from the hand of Lipscomb is interesting in several respects.  First, it reflects the ongoing debate and we perhpas hear a strong sectional flavor in it.  Second, Lipscomb’s theology is thoroughly kingdomized, that is, he will hear nothing of any human institution but only a commitment to the kingdom of God. Third, we see Lipscomb’s strong opposition to violence and how his opposition to politics is partly rooted in his conviction that politics always leads to violence in some form or other.

David Lipscomb, “Voting,” Gospel Advocate (1876) 543-546

In response to a letter from N. B. Gibbons of Waxahatchie, Texas, dated May 4, 1876, Lipscomb writes:

This is the first and only request we have had to review Bro. P[inkerton]’s articles. We fully intended to do it before he wrote, but his articles fell so far short of an argument, were so wholly composed of platitudes and generalities that while sometimes true and sometimes not, had no bearing on the question, so abounded in inconsistencies with the recognized and avowed principle of Scripture application and so inconsistent with themselves, and so often not having a remote bearing on the question, whether true or false, that we did not see any necessity for reviewing it. No friend of voting that we saw was willing to accept it as a fair statement of the reasons why Christians should vote, no one opposed to Christians voting thought it needed a reply.

In the quotation made by our brother, the reason assigned for Christ’s not holding office or voting seems to us not a pertinent one. If he came to be an example to Christians, certainly he should set the example in that as in other things.

Preachers, Bishops, Pastors, Elders, Evangelists, and all officers in the church now vote. All members of the church are officers in the only sense the word is applicable to a functionary of the church. Paul says, “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, so we being [544] many, are one body in Christ, and members of one of another.” Rom.’s xii:5. That is, as each member of the human body has its office, but all the members have not the same office to perform, so it is in the body of Christ. Bro P.’s argument then would be, if he stated it clearly and logically, Christ had offices in connection with his church, this prevented him either voting or holding office in any other institution or government. The legitimate deduction from this is, as Christ could not vote or hold office in human institutions because he had offices to fulfill in and with reference to his own kingdom, so his members who have offices to discharge in his kingdom cannot vote or hold office in other institutions. This is certainly the logical conclusion, from his premises, all members have their offices to perform in the kingdom, therefore, no member can hold office or vote in other kingdoms. It is true Bro. P. has said there is no voting in those days—and hence might claim that it did not apply to the voting part.  But every school-boy or girl that has read the simplest elements of Grecian or Roman history knows Bro. P. is wholly wrong in this. Greece and Rome both were elective democracies in their beginning. The latter stood as much longer than any modern democracy has maintained itself and even after the substitution of the empire for the democracy, the Emperors themselves were for a long time elected by voting. These elections were not always without fraud, without violence, sometimes the will of the people was set aside by military authority or the violence of the soldiery or the mob. But such things are not unknown in this providentially raised up government for the development of Christian voters and office-holders—with its credit mobilier, salary grab, post traderships almost universal crime and corruption, thrown in. We doubt if there ever was a government among intelligent people more thoroughly honeycombed with crime and corruption and more constantly tempting men to dishonesty and venality than this. It is not the general government alone, nor one party, but the whole body politic, is corrupt. No man can breathe the air of our politics and remain pure. If he can, it is not true that “evil communications corrupt good manners.” Our politics are much like the politics of all democratic governments. When a man enters into them he drinks of their spirit and becomes one with them. Instances of this kind occur constantly. It is an exceedingly rare thing for a man in politics to pay any regard to his religion.

Bro. P. in his argument maintains that as the Bible says nothing about voting, Christians may vote. Does he argue thus about the mourner’s bench and infant sprinkling &c.? Bro. Franklin in his last number of the Review, makes the argument “As the Bible says nothing about voting Christians may vote or not.” In the very same number of his paper he says the Bible says nothing about the organ, therefore Christians should not use the organ. The legs of the lame are truly not equal. When such m en as Bros. Franklin and Pinkerton reason so contradictorily with themselves something must be wrong. [545] They can never satisfy thinking men in this way. It is certain they do not reason and act on the same principle in both cases.

To show the inconclusiveness of Bro. P.’s reasoning, we refer, without re-reading his articles, to the statement, that “sometimes the voice of the people, may be the voice of God sometimes it is not.” This is given as a reason why Christians should engage in politics. But he gives no rule, by which we can determine when their voice is the voice of God and when it is not. The idea that we can ever look to the voice of the people as the voice of God in this indefinite form, not only is of no practical good to any; it is of infinite harm to the world. It is worse than direct Spiritual Influence. Instead of going to the word of God to learn his will they are looking to the voice of the people with no rule to tell when the voice is of God. They find it in the frenzy of fanaticism. In our recent strife each party concluded the voice of his people was the voice of God. And many people of the South under Bro. Pinkerton’s rule thought they did God’s service to kill the hated Yankee and to rob him of his property. It was equally true on the other side. When religious people engage in war, they clothe their strife with the frenzy of religious fanaticism. Then it makes war more bitter, more bloody, more cruel, more vindictive in its character to maintain such an idea. When God has a message for his people, he is able to deliver it, in such a manner that none of those willing to hearken can misunderstand; he can deliver it in his own voice.

Bro. P. seeing the utter incongruity of Christians striving against each other in politics, suggests that to avoid this the church shall call a convention to determine what shall be done, how they shall all vote. Well what law will govern them? What rule for deciding? Will they dare decide where God has given no direction? To do it would be to make assumptions worse than papal. Then again, what shall they decide? Whether the church shall vote for Tweed or Belknap? Whether they shall contract or expand the currency? How can a church decide such questions? Where is the rule? But suppose they conclude that Christians cannot support the corrupt men of either party and put men of their own in nomination and become a third party? Then there will be a distinctly religious party in politics, a political party on religious grounds. The most corrupt and corrupting of all parties. But he wishes these conventions confined to single congregations, not to a multiplicity of churches. That is a church in one State will decide in one way, a church in another another way. Christians will then form political parties based on sectional grounds.  These lead most surely to war and violence, and Christians, children of the Prince of Peace, foment war and murder and destroy each other as the result. These are some of the impractical and antichristian absurdities in which he involves himself. We are sure there can be no necessity in reviewing such fallacious reasoning, involving absurdities so glaring. Bro. P. conjures up men of straw to demolish, in the shape of conclusions he supposes are [546] involved in the opposite position that no man, woman or child ever did believe, and that are not in the least involved in the position. It is much easier to explode a man’s position when he state if for him than when he states it himself.  It is usually regarded somewhat more in accordance with fair discussion to accept a man’s own statements of his position. But we are not surprised that Bro. P. finds it more convenient to meet positions of his own framing than of those who believe it wrong for Christians to engage in politics. They are so much more easily disposed of.

In the particular positions to which our brother refers, certainly Christ was only prospective King and Priest while on earth. But he was an active Savior from the day he was recognized as the Son of God, and anointed with the Holy Spirit. He was a Christed Savior. His work of saving was not perfected until his blood was shed, he was buried resurrected ascended and crowned a king and made a priest.

But the sacrifice was as much a part of the work of the Savior as the offering of the blood as a High Priest at the right hand of God. He set the full example for the Christian to follow, and if he refrained from political affairs it was because he desired Christians to do likewise. So far from Bro. Jones’ or Pinketon’s articles convincing any one that Christians can go into politics, we are certain they confirm all thoughtful Christians there is no ground for it. Brethren, let us get clear of our partisan prejudices for human institutions and look plainly at the teachings of God and learn of them the truth as it is in Christ.

8 Comments | Society, Stone-Campbell | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Haggai 2:20-23 — Shake the Nations, Lord!

June 29, 2012

Haggai’s fourth oracle comes on the same day as his third, that is, the day on which the foundation of the temple is laid. As Judah gathered to celebrate the occasion (cf. Ezra 3:10-13), Haggai addressed first the priests and people (2:10-19) and now he specifically addresses Zerubabel who is the governor of Judah (2:20-23).

Zerubabel himself had laid the foundation stone (cf. Zechariah 4:8). Along with the priests, he is a leader in the festivities. He represents the house (dynasty) of David. While he is no king since he serves the Persian Emperor Darius, his line is a royal one and that line carries the hope of Israel for the future. Haggai address this royal hope. Zerubabel’s royal lineage—his connection to David as the “son of Shealtiel”—is what is important and not his present governorship. Haggai looks to the future.

Haggai’s message to Zerubabel is astounding. It not only reverses a divine judgment from the days of Jeremiah, but it renews the Abrahamic and Davidic promises.

Previously, Haggai used the language of shaking heaven and earth to announce that God would insure that the wealth of the nations would flow into Judah in order to enrich the glory of this second temple. In that promise the nations would share their wealth with Judah and the temple would again—even surpass previous episodes—experience glory. God will glorify his temple.

However, Haggai now uses this language—the shaking of heaven and earth—to describe the subjugation of the nations. God will overthrow thrones and shatter the power of the nations. He will create such havoc among the nations that they will slaughter each other and undermine their military power. The nations will destroy themselves in their violence (“sword”).

Consequently, Zerubabel (and the people as well) need not fear the power of the mighty Empires who in their arrogance believe they achieve something significant and rule by their own power. The kingdom of God, that is, the reign of God, will undermine the kingdoms of this world.

“That day” is coming, says Yahweh. Like in Zechariah 12-14, “that day” is an eschatological, future day. The fall of the nations will be the “day of the Lord” which promises the fall of God’s enemies. It is, ultimately, an eschatological day when God will finally and fully shake heaven and earth, destroy the last enemies, and renew the creation in a new heaven and new earth.

“On that day” the Davidic line (“son of Shealtiel”) will sit upon the throne of God and rule over the new heaven and new earth. Haggai promises Zerubabel, that despite all appearances, that day will come. God promises this by making him “like [his] signet ring.”

This is an important statement as it recalls a text in Jeremiah 22:24-30. Jehoiachin, who suffered exile in Babylon, is compared to a “signet ring” that God removes from his hand and throws away into another country. The signet ring was a piece of jewelry used to seal documents. It represented the king himself and, in this case, the king of Judah represented Yahweh. But Jehoiachin failed to imitate Yahweh and thus is removed from God’s hand.

Moreover, Jeremiah promised that none of Jehoiachin’s offspring who went with him into exile would ever sit on the throne. The throne of David is emptied and left vacant. But is the promise thus vacated? Is the throne of David dead?

Absolutely not! The signet ring that was removed (Jehoiachin) is now placed on a descendent of David one who was born in exile (Zerubabel). God, in renewal of the Davidic promise, anoints Zerubabel as the Davidic successor. Zerubabel is not one of the offspring of Jehoiachin who went into exile but he is his grandson who was born in exile. God renews the Davidic covenant with Zerubabel, and thus renews the hope of that the kingdom of God will yet fill the earth as the prophets, including Isaiah and Zechariah, have promised.

Zerubabel receives this promise but even more he typifies or symbolizes the reign of the coming kingdom of God in God’s Anointed (Messiah). Zerubabel himself would not see the day when the kingdoms of the earth would be overthrown by Yahweh, though he did see revolts in Babylon and Egypt against the Persian Empire defeated. But his offspring—one from the line of David—would eventually defeat those kingdoms.

That one reigns even now at the right hand of God where he must reign until every enemy is defeated. On “that day” the Messiah will defeat the kingdoms of this world and death itself and thus reign upon the Davidic throne in the new Jerusalem in the new heaven and new earth.

Lord, come quickly!

4 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Mark 13:4-23 – This Revolt is not the Kingdom of God

May 29, 2012

From the day of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem where he saw everything that was happening in the temple through his cleansing of the temple and confrontation with temple authorities to his exit from the temple in disgust has led Jesus to this moment in Mark 13. Instead of sitting on the Mount of Olives and facing the temple to announce its deliverance (which many rebels and prophets, in the dark days of 66-70 C.E., thought Zechariah promised [Zechariah 14:4-6]), Jesus announces divine judgment and the temple’s destruction.

The “great buildings” of the temple will become rubble—“every one of them will be thrown down” (Mark 13:3). When several of the disciples from the intimate core of Jesus’ life—Peter, James and John with the addition of Andrew, Peter’s brother—spoke privately with Jesus, they asked: “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to be fulfilled?”

In response, the Markan narrative uses an apocalyptic sermon to transition the story from the end of Jesus’s ministry to the beginning of the passion of Jesus. The sermon about the destruction of Jerusalem is the final word of Jesus on the temple authorities (which was prefigured in the parable of the vineyard owners in Mark 12:1-12). But more importantly it is an exhortation for Mark’s readers who are tempted to align themselves with the Jewish rebels in 66-70 C.E. As Ched Myers heads a section in his Binding the Strong Man (p. 331), “The revolt is not the kingdom.” Jesus-followers do not buy into the kingdom (nationalistic) aspirations of the rebels or their violent methods. Rather, to subvert Roman oppression, disciples follow Jesus to a cross rather than take up take up a sword. Disciples, Jesus urges, do not listen to the war rhetoric of nationalism but embrace the peacemaking of the kingdom of God.

Mark utilizes apocalyptic imagery and language, drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures (particularly Daniel) and other apocalyptic literature (good vs. evil dramas portrayed in symoblic imagery) that had emerged in the previous century, to picture this divine judgment and the chaos in which nations and sin involve humanity. This “little apocalypse” (also known as the Mt. Olivet discourse) describes God’s judgment of Jerusalem by the Romans but also envisions God’s deliverance of his elect. There are (apparently) two vistas in the text—the vision of Rome’s defeat of the Jewish insurrection and the vision (promise) of divine salvation from all oppression, violence and injustice.

Though highly contested, it appears that Jesus’ apocalyptic sermon falls into two distinct sections. The first (Mark 13:5-23) is focused on the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. The second (Mark 13:24-37) seems to look beyond the immediate crisis to an eschatological (“last days”) one.  Consequently, the first section references a cataclysmic event (destruction of Jerusalem) which, however, is not the end. The second section announces the end of the “last days” as an eschatological reality that follows the destruction of Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem, as a significant event within God’s history with Israel, becomes a historical anticipation of the eschatological end (“last days”) itself. At least, this is one way of reading. Others, like N. T. Wright and preterists of different sorts, read the whole of Mark 13 in the light of the destruction of Jerusalem.

The fervor, excitement and fear that surrounded the Jewish revolt in 66-70 C.E. is perhaps beyond our imagination. Nevertheless, it is important to situate ourselves in that historical moment in order to appreciate the language Jesus uses in this apocalypse. Here is a summary of some of the significant events:

  1. The revolt began in Jerusalem in June 66 C.E.
  2. Cestus Gallus, the Roman Legate of Syria, marched on Jerusalem in November 66 C.E. to put down the revolt. Though he occupied parts of the northern city, he could not take the Temple Mount itself. He retreated to the coast and his army was decimated  by Jewish guerilla activity.
  3. Jewish rebels declared the liberation of Jerusalem and Palestine. Many interpreted this as a sign of God’s favor and the coming of the kingdom of God.
  4. Rome (Nero) sent Vespasian, with several legions, to put down the revolt. Beginning in Galilee in May 67 C.E., he marched to the walls of Jerusalem in June 68 C.E. But his campaign suddenly ended when he returned to Rome due to potential civil war in the capital city (Nero had died and there were competing Emperors).
  5. Jewish rebels saw this as a divine intervention—God had saved the temple once again.
  6. When Vespasian became Emperor, he sent Titus to lay siege to Jerusalem which began in April 70 C.E. and was successful by October 70 C.E. Throughout the siege, many “prophets” interpreted various phenomenon as signs of God’s imminent deliverance of the city, but it never came. Jerusalem fell and the temple was destroyed.

Understanding the historical moment brings Mark 13:4-23 alive. The text not only breathes the atmosphere of 66-70 C.E. but it also contains guidance for believers living in the midst of those trying days—a tribulation which had not been seen previously except in the days of Jeremiah when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the Solomonic temple. Jesus uses apocalyptic (and hyperbolic) language to describe how horrible those days would be–nothing like it before or after.  This language is not intended to convey a fact (that is, no other day is so terrible as this one) but to ev0ke emotion, awe and watchfulness.

The structure of Mark 13:4-23 illuminates Jesus’ intent and functions as an exhortation or paransis.  His disciples are called to “watch” and they are expected to act when they hear or see something. This section is tied to the experience of the disciples regarding the destruction of the temple.  The following structure indicates the tightness of the literary unit.

Watch (blepete)! There are false Christs who deceive (13:5)

“When you hear….” (13:7) about wars, earthquakes and famines….

Watch (blepete)! They will persecute you (13:9)

“When you see…” (13:14) the abomination that causes deslotion…

Watch (blepete)! There are false Christs who deceive (13:23).

The Jewish insurrection generated an ardent expectation that the Messiah would appear. This gives teeth to Jesus’ warning that others would come and claim to be the Messiah (“I am he”). They are deceivers. Myers (p. 332) is correct to understand these deceivers in the context of “wars” where “nation will rise against nation.” Jesus is not warning against false miracle workers or diviners but rather against revolutionary militarists. When the disciples “hear” about “wars” (revolts, revolutions), those voices anticipate the first rumblings of the Jewish revolt. The deceivers will interpret the earthquakes and famines as signs of the final battle for the end. But Jesus assures them that this is not the end but only “birth pains” that shake the world prior to the “end.” The disciples should not fear or “be alarmed.” While the events “must happen,” disciples do not participate in them nor do they fear them or worry about them.

Yet their very non-participation endangers them. Jesus told his disciples to “watch” (literally, see) for the deceivers (13:5) but also “watch” (see) for the persecutors (13:9). Jewish rebels and those who support the rebellion will pursue peacemakers and disciples will suffer for their opposition to violence. The disciples do not proclaim a “gospel” that serves Jewish nationalism but rather is good news for all nations. This is the “gospel of Jesus Christ,” the good news of the kingdom that characterized Jesus’ ministry. The kingdom of God is good news, but the Jewish revolt is not and neither is the Roman claim that the Emperor is “gospel” for the Empire. Only the ministry of Jesus, which embodies the kingdom of God, secures redemption, peace and justice.

Yet, the disciples, like John the Baptist and Jesus, will be handed over to persecuting and executing authorities. The disciples will not be saved in this moment but they will find themselves arrested, tried, flogged and potentially executed. As Jesus-followers, they follow him to the cross. And this proclamation of the gospel will bring the good news to all nations. “The blood of the martyrs,” as Tertullian wrote in the late second century, “is the seed of the church.”

This political and external pressure on the Christian community will create internal dissension. Families will be torn apart as children rebel against their parents who are then executed; brothers will betray brothers and some will die. “Everybody” will “hate” the disciples because they do not participate in the nationalistic fervor of the Jewish rebellion and they Romans suspect they are Jewish insurrectionists.

“When you hear” about wars, Jesus counsels calm, determination and faith. “When you see” the abomination of desolation, Jesus counsels them to act, that is, to flee to the mountains. They are to flee rather than fight! Disciples should leave Jerusalem because what is about to happen is so cataclysmic that it is incomparable or unimaginable. The counsel to flee is urgent—leave without your cloak and don’t enter the house to take anything. The counsel to flee is desperate—pregnancy will be a hindrance rather than a blessing in that moment. Pray that this will happen in the summer because swollen streams and cold in the winter rainy season would hinder their flight.

But what is it that they might “see”? What is the trigger for flight? Mark is not explicit; he is intentionally cryptic. The reader must discern his meaning which assumes some context, narrative or worldview that informs interpretation. Further, there is a reason Jesus and Mark are not very explicit—their language was treasonous. Too explicit and Mark’s Gospel would have created extra difficulties for believers with a copy.

The “abomination of desolation,” dependent upon Daniel 9:26, 11:30-32 and 12:11, triggers flight. In Daniel this language describes the destruction of the sanctuary by pagans (Gentiles) along with the cessation of sacrifices. It appears that Jesus counsels his disciples to flee Jerusalem when they see Roman armies approaching who will actually fulfill the words of Jesus that not one stone of the temple buildings will be left upon another.

Though cataclysmic and devastating on an unimaginable scale, Jesus assures the disciples that it will be brief. God will shorten those days for the sake of the elect. When the Roman armies arrive to lay siege to Jerusalem, the end of the temple is near and it won’t take long.

But will not God intervene, perhaps at the last moment, to save the temple? False messiahs and false prophets will interpret signs and claim miraculous interventions to that effect, but the words of Jesus remain—the temple will be destroyed. Consequently, Jesus again (the third time!) tells them to “watch” (see). The disciples have been properly warned and now they must “watch and pray” for the coming trial.

Don’t be deceived. The temple will fall. Don’t join the ranks of the rebels but suffer the hardship of a Christ-follower. Jerusalem will fall. Watch but don’t be afraid and don’t worry. God has shortened the days so that the trial will be brief.

I wonder what Jesus might counsel today when many of his disciples are urged to embrace nationalism, participate in war-making, and submit the good news of the kingdom to the good news of an empire.  It has happened repeatedly thorughout the history of the church–from Constantine to Nazi Germany.  The agenda is often still the same though the players, purposes and circumstances change.

May God have mercy.

6 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

Tolbert Fanning — Advocate for Peace in 1861 (Part XIII)

April 9, 2012

In the last issue of the Gospel Advocate during the Civil War, December 1861, Fanning noted the death of an “old friend,” Pierce Butler Anderson. It is Fanning’s last comment on the Civil War until the Gospel Advocate was rebirthed in January 1866.

Fanning is gracious in reporting his death knowing “the Lord of all the earth will do right.”

P. B. Anderson (1806-1861) was the son of U. S. Senator Joseph Anderson (1757-1837). Joseph Anderson was the first senator from Tennessee sent to Washington, a lawyer who served eighteen years and then as the United States Treasurer from 1815 to 1836. He served in the American Revolution from the Battle of Monmouth in NJ through Valley Forge to the victory at Yorktown, and was discharged at the rank of Major. He served in the Tennessee House of Representatives from 1843-1847.

P. B. Anderson attended West Point with Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. He resigned from the Point when he was permanently disabled by a bayonet through the wrist after three years at the institution. He returned to Tullahoma, TN, where he studied law as an apprentice. At the start of the Mexican-American War, he raised a volunteer company from Tennessee and participated in major engagements in Mexico. He practiced law but also taught mathematics at Franklin College for two years.

Joining the Confederate army on April 25, 1861, he raised a company of volunteers in Tennessee at the start of the Civil War, and then raised an artillery corp of 100 men.  He joined Robert E. Lee’s command in Western Virginia as a Captain. He died in the battle of Greenbrier on October 3, 1861.  He was killed when he mistook a Union advance line for a returning Confederate picket line and invited them into the Confederate trenches. He was killed immediately. He was 56 years old at his death and was buried in Tullahoma, Tennessee.

****Fanning’s Notice****

Tolbert Fanning, “A Brave Soldier of His Country Has Fallen,” Gospel Advocate 7.12 (December 1861) 364.

We learn from recent dispatches that our old friend and quondam brother, Pierce Butler Anderson, fell at a late battle in Western Virginia. He was educated at West Point, was for sometime a legislator of the State from McMinn, served bravely through the Mexican war, afterwards spent some two years as Professor of Mathematics in Franklin College; while with us submitted to the King of Zion, but soon afterwards, from bad health and other causes, retired to Tullahoma, where he led a quiet and perhaps not a very profitable life till the opening of the present civil war. He went to Virginia in Col. Turney’s regiment, soon after was appointed Captain of Artillery by Gen. Lee, and conducted himself as a soldier till he was called from earth.

He was a high-toned soldier, and were we superstitious we might conclude he had a presentiment of his fatal death. When he bade us farewell in Nashville, he said, with tears in his eyes, he would go to the war but never expected to return. The Lord of all the earth will do right. His will be the reward of an honored defender of his country. Our old friend has fought his last battle.

Leave a Comment » | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 938 other followers

%d bloggers like this: