1 Corinthians 13 for cross-cultural workers

If I speak with the tongue of a national, but have not love, I am only a
resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I wear the national dress and understand the culture and all forms of
etiquette, and if I copy all mannerisms so that I could pass for a national, but
have not love, I am nothing.
If I give all I possess to the poor, and if I spend my energy without reserve,
but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love endures long hours of language study, and is kind to those who mock his
accent; love does not envy those who stayed home; love does not exalt his
home culture, is not proud of his national superiority;
Does not boast about the way we do it back home, does not seek his own
ways, is not easily provoked into telling about the beauty of his home country,
does not think evil about this culture.
Love bears all criticism about his home culture, believes all good things about
this new culture, confidently anticipates being at home in this place, endures
all inconveniences.
Love never fails: but where there is cultural anthropology, it will fail; where
there is contextualization, it will lead to syncretism; where there is linguistics,
it will change.
For we know only part of the culture and minister to only part.
But when Christ is reproduced in this culture, then our inadequacies will be
insignificant.
When I was in America I spoke as an American, I understood as an American,
I thought as an American; but when I left America I put away American
things.
Now we adapt to this culture awkwardly; but He will live in it intimately: now I
speak with a strange accent, but He will speak to the heart.
And now these three remain: cultural adaptation, language study and love. But
the greatest of these is love.
—Author Unknown

Mais um ano de vida acadêmica

Quando comecei a estudar, ainda na minha infância, nunca imaginei chegar tão longe. Claro que quando você encontra aquela área de estudo ao qual você se identifica, prosseguir “caminhando” se torna um prazer, e não um martírio. Mas mesmo assim, muitos desistem da vida acadêmica, pois demanda muita disciplina, concentração, dedicação e acima de tudo, tempo. O tempo neste caso é de fundamental importância, pois, sem ele, o estudante não terá o sucesso que espera.
Finalizei o meu primeiro ano de mestrado, agora, tenho no mínimo, mais uns três. Porém, meus planos pessoais vão muito além do mestrado. Isto significa que ainda terei por volta de uns 7 a 8 anos de sala de aula pela frente. Isto apenas como estudante.
A minha oração é que Deus motive a minha vida e providêncie os recursos financeiros necessários para a continuação dos meus estudos. Sem Ele, eu não teria chegado até aqui!

Rodrigo Serrão

Book Critique: Communio Sanctorum the Church as the Communion of Saints

This book was not written by a single author but rather it is a production of a bilateral work between the German Bishops Conference and the United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany. The main purpose of this book is to address some questions raised in response to a previous work called Communio in Word and Sacrament. Both Christian groups also discuss new issues, such as, the interaction of the witnessing authorities in the discovery and proclamation of the truth of the gospel, the role of a ministry to the unity of the church on a universal level and the related questions of the papal office, and the community of the saints beyond death (page viii).
The purpose of writing a work using the right principles of ecumenical hermeneutics was accomplished. However, it is very clear that they never had the purpose of bringing a consensus to the controversial issues of the doctrines of each church. The goal was to reach an agreement in the fundamental and essential content of the controversial doctrine and to “explain how and why the remaining doctrinal differences can be accepted without undercutting the basis and essence of the agreement” (page ix).
Three documents served to give insights and were constantly consulted in the writing of Communio Sanctorum: 1) The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide? 2) Church and Justification, and 3) Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.
Despite the format (which is different from the usual, due to the addition of numbers in each paragraph), the paper is very understandable and easy to read in all its statements. The authors very skillfully wrote deeply about matters of theology and ecclesiology. Each chapter follows a logic sequence, going from the very basic Christianity which is the confession of its faith, to the full path of communion which is the result of an ecumenical dialogue. There is a constant expectation throughout the pages of this book in a sense that what is not yet a consensus may become consensus one day. Unity is the key word of this work. As it is written, “a structured form of unity in which the churches agree in their understanding of the gospel, recognize each other as the church of Jesus Christ, have unreserved communion in the sacraments and mutually recognize their ministerial offices to which word and sacrament are entrusted” (page 91).
As a continuation of a previous work, this book tries to offer answers for the questions raised previously. In saying that, I emphasize more the experiential natural of the book than the research nature of it. Although experience plays the major role in this paper, you also find a good bibliography at the endnotes of each chapter, especially in chapters four, six and seven. As it was already said, the language used in this book is very accessible to all readers, although it does not take the scholarly and contemporary flavor of the work away from it. The book is permeated with some bridges that link the tradition (past) of each Church to our days. The work also includes the common points of each Church tradition and the relevance of the common doctrines to the daily life of the community.
The intention of the book is not to incline or convince the reader to any of the sides of the dialogue. The main goal is to walk in the center, or at least look for a balance. But because of the doctrinal differences, the authors point out disagreements that are so often found in each tradition. The book becomes very interesting reading due to the authors’ total openness to their ideas and the nature of the dialogue. They clearly expose their beliefs and then search for a common ground. Therefore, ecclesiology and community life issues are dealt with in this book with an ecumenical “spirit.” By approaching in this way, the authors are able to diminish or even completely disregard any kind of bias. But as I said before, neither side omits their belief, even if what is believed as part of the faith is totally different from the other tradition. One common phrase in the book is “together we can say.” From cover to cover the reader will find an attempt to harmonize the disparities of positions, pointing out what is common between them. And for my surprise, Lutherans and Catholics have more in common than I thought.
When we come to issues like Saints and Mary the mother of Jesus, what really surprised me was the Lutheran position. In regard to the saints, they say that “the reformers have not rejected in principle the intercession of the dead” (page 80). They point this position to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession which grants that not only angels but also the saints in heaven pray for the church. And they conclude saying that what cannot happen is the veneration of saints, even though, they admit that “the veneration of the saints is above all a form of venerating God” (page 81). In regard to Mary, the Lutheran position is more likely similar to the rest of the evangelical tradition. They treat this issue very seriously and even call the Catholics to reconsider their view on this subject. They appeal for the Catholics to reflect on “the role of Christ as the one Mediator, the primacy of faith and grace, and the preeminence of the word of God in the Bible even in relation to Mary” (page 87).
Another great issue that concerns the life of the community of faith is about the Petrine succession (Popes). The whole discussion about this issue takes almost seven pages in the book. No other issue has so much attention and is treated in such detail as the issue of the Papacy. There is an attempt to explain the reasons why there is the succession of the Petrine ministry, and also to explain all the implications that involve this ministry. In all the discussion, each side makes clear its position. The Lutheran’s position follows the Reformation thought on the Papacy. And it makes more clearly with Lutheran’s disagreement of Vatican I statements about primacy of jurisdiction and the infallibility of the Pope. What surprised me was the Catholic statement that “papal infallibility can be exercised solely in absolute loyalty to the apostolic faith (Holy Scripture) so that a pope who does not maintain this loyalty has by that fact forfeited his office” (page 67). An opening for a closer conversation about this issue would need: “1) the possibility of an orientation to the exercise of primacy in the first Christian millennium without reference to later developments, 2) a differentiation among the offices united in the person of the pope, 3) the shape of the church as a communion of sister churches, 4) the development of the relationship between the church of Rome and the Catholic Eastern Catholic churches that are united with it, and 5) the legitimate variety in liturgy, theology, spirituality, leadership, and praxis” (page 68).
The ecumenical language of this work already implies a sense of fairness due to the establishment of the idea that there must be something in common between the two traditions. For this reason, the work is fair and reached the desired aim.

Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.

Rodrigo Serrao 

Forgive them Father

Estava dirigindo hoje a tarde ouvindo o CD da Lauryn Hill, quando minha atenção se voltou para a letra da música “Forgive them Father.” Achei muito verdadeira e intrigante.
Somente para questão de situação, as palavras “forgive them Father for they know not what they do” foram proferidas por Jesus Cristo ao ser crucificado. Está escrito no livro de Lucas 23.34. Aquele foi um momento em que Jesus teve uma profunda consciência de Sua missão e indiscultivelmente foi também uma grande prova de amor. Não é fácil fazer esta oração, principalmente no contexto ao qual Jesus se encontrava.
A música fala de situações onde pessoas se decepcionam com outros porque esperam neles ações que condizam com o discurso ou imagem vendida, contudo, isto quase sempre é algo que eles não podem ou não querem fazer. Muitos agem por motivações erradas, ou seja, pessoas que para tirar proveito de algo ou alguém, mentem e se disfarçam de inocência, de pureza, etc. Porém, o pior de tudo é que a verdadeira motivação quase sempre está abafada por detrás de uma hipocrisia disfarçada de piedade. Isso tem se tornado muito comum hoje em dia, as pessoas estão vendendo suas almas, e o preço está cada vez mais barato. Muitos já não tem mais coração!
Perdoa-os Pai, porque eles não sabem o que fazem, é o coro da música, foram as palavras de Jesus em um momento literalmente crucial (de cruz), e deve também ser a nossa, para que haja o exercício de uma vida cristã verdadeira e abundante.
Existirão momentos em nossas vidas que qualquer atitude nossa de vingança ou de retribuição poderá nos trazer desgostos infindáveis. O melhor a fazer é entregar a Deus, e pedir que Ele os perdoe e que se for da vontade dEle, que Ele execute o juízo.
Foi Ele quem nos ensinou a amar os nossos inimigos.
Rodrigo Serrao
______________________________
Forgive them Father
Lauryn Hill

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us Although them again we will never, never, never trust

Dem noh know weh dem do, dig out yuh yei while dem sticking like glue,Fling, skin, grin while dem plotting fah you,True, Ah Who???

Forgive them father for they know not what they do
Forgive them father for they know not what they do

Beware the false motives of others Be careful of those who pretend to be brothers And you never suppose it's those who are closest to you, to you They say all the right things to gain their position Then use your kindness as their ammunition To shoot you down in the name of ambition, they do

Forgive them father for they know not what they do
Forgive them father for they know not what they do

Why every Indian wanna be the chief? Feed a man 'til he's full and he still want beef Give me grief, try to tief off my piece Why for you to increase, I must decrease? If I treat you kindly does it mean that I'm weak? You hear me speak and think I won't take it to the streets I know enough cats that don't turn the other cheek But I try to keep it civilized like Menelik And other African czars observing stars with war scars Get yours in this capitalistic system So many caught or got bought you can't list them How you gonna idolize the missing? To survive is to stay alive in the face of opposition Even when they comin' gunnin'I stand position L's known the mission since conception Let's free the people from deception If you looking for the answers Then you gotta ask the questions And when I let go, my voice echoes through the ghetto Sick of men trying to pull strings like Geppetto Why black people always be the ones to settle March through these streets like Soweto

Like Cain and Abel, Caesar and Brutus, Jesus and Judas,Backstabbers do this

Forgive them father for they know not what they do
Forgive them father for they know not what they do

It took me a little while to discover Wolves in sheep coats who pretend to be lovers Men who lack conscience will even lie to themselves, to themselves A friend once said, and I found to be true That everyday people, they lie to God too So what makes you think, that they won't lie to you

Forgive them father for they know not what they do
Forgive them, forgive them
Forgive them father for they know not what they do
Forgive them, forgive them

Gwan like dem love while dem rip yuh to shreds,Trample pon yuh heart and lef yuh fi dead,Dem a yuh fren who yuh depen pon from way back when, But if yuh gi dem yuh back den yuh mus meet yuh end,Dem noh know wey dem do, Dem no know, dem no know, dem no know, Dem no know, dem no know wey dem do

Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry

This book has a strong ecumenical nature and due to this fact more conservative readers may not agree with all the statements, ideas and positions discussed. The themes proposed (Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry) are really very controversial and have different interpretations according to each church tradition. The first essay revolves around Baptism. The author of this essay covers almost all the aspects of the doctrine of Baptism. He starts defining Baptism and exploring its meaning. This beginning is very orthodox and Bible centered. He says that Baptism “is participation in Christ’s death and resurrection, a washing away of sin, a renewal by the Spirit. It is also the experience of salvation from the flood, an exodus from bondage and liberation into a new humanity in which barriers of division whether of sex or race or social status are transcended” (page 2). Baptism according to the author is a gift of the Spirit. The Spirit works in the lives of all people before, during and after their baptism. The Spirit of God initiates the whole process, starting with conversion, pardoning and cleansing. Although the Holy Spirit plays a major role, the author makes it clear that human participation is also required during the process. He says that there is a “necessity of faith for the reception of the salvation,” and that, “personal commitment is necessary” (page 3). All the controversies about Baptism starts in article number four. This article will discuss the practice of Baptism (for believers and infants). According to the author there was a possibility of the practice of infant baptism during the apostolic age. At this point, the author does not support his statements in the Bible anymore, but only on church tradition. Although he does not consider infant baptism wrong, he makes clear that “baptism upon personal profession of faith is the most clearly attested pattern in the New Testament documents” (page 4). One of the arguments used to support infant baptism is that the infant in a later moment of his life will respond personally to Christ, making his baptism valid. In his commentary on infant baptism, he introduces a concept that I have never heard. He talks about corporate faith and faith shared with parents. Maybe this idea is very common in some church traditions, but it is totally new to me. Again, this statement lacks biblical support. I wonder, “What if this infant never personally professes a faith in Jesus Christ? Will he/she be able to enter into the presence of the Lord just by his parents’ faith?” Another characteristic of the corporate faith is the responsibility of the community to nurture the baptized children in the ways of the Lord. The last article on Baptism deals with the celebration. Again, several statements are supported by church tradition only. Maybe one of the most acceptable traditions in churches of all denominations is about who administers the baptism. Jesus told us to baptize all those people who come to believe in him through our preaching, but we ignore Jesus’ words and normally only an ordained minister is the authorized person who has the privilege to baptize a new believer. Then he moves toward eucharist. Jesus instituted the eucharist during his last meal with the disciples. He commanded us to do the same in remembrance (anamnesis) of Him. “Consequently the eucharist is a sacramental meal which by visible signs communicates to us God’s love in Jesus Christ, the love by which Jesus loved his own ‘to the end’” (page 10). There are several meanings of the eucharist. According to the author, one of the meanings would be thanksgiving. We, as the church, express our thankfulness to God for all the benefits provided. Another meaning is the memorial of Christ. He says that Christ himself is present in our remembrance of Him, and His presence is what grants us communion with Himself. On the last section of the significance of the anamnesis, the author says that the Church believes and confesses Jesus’ real, living and active presence in the eucharist. For him, Christ’s presence does not depend on our faith, but to discern the body and blood, faith is essential. With regard to the issue of transubstantiation and of biblical interpretation, the author’s commentary on the bread and wine being transformed into the real body and real blood is this: “the decision remains for the churches whether this difference can be accommodated within the convergence formulated in the text itself” (page 12). Another meaning of the eucharist is an invocation of the Spirit. For the author, there is an intrinsic relationship between the words of institution, Christ’s promise, the epiclesis, the invocation of the Spirit, and the liturgy. Jesus is the centre of the eucharist and the promise contained in the words of institution are therefore fundamental to the celebration. Eucharist also means communion of the faithful. It demands reconciliation and sharing. The author states, “Through the eucharist the all renewing grace of God penetrates and restores human personality and dignity” (page 14). Another meaning of the eucharist is that it is like a meal of the Kingdom. The last subject analyzed in this book is the ministry. Although he will speak about a specific type of ministry, he first addresses that all people of God are commissioned to speak and communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All Christians have authority given by Christ to spread the Good News. His focus then moves toward ordained ministry and what is the biblical base for such a thing. For him, the particular call of the apostles as the representatives of the renewed Israel is the biblical base to support the ordination of ministers. But he makes clear that “the role of the apostles as witnesses to the resurrection of Christ is unique and unrepeatable. There is therefore a difference between the apostles and the ordained ministers whose ministries are founded on theirs” (page 21). Thus, ordination is completely rooted in the apostolic tradition, where the succession of bishops became one of the ways of this expression. This succession was understood as serving, symbolizing and guarding the continuity of the apostolic faith and communion. On the subject of women’s ordination, the author is very short in his comments, but at the same time very clear and direct. For him, in Christ there is no male or female. Therefore, God can use both men and women to bless His people within and without the church. He then addresses that churches have not yet agreed on this topic of discussion. The meaning of ordination is discussed toward the end of the section on ministry. The very reason for ordination is the continuation of the mission of the apostles (preaching and teaching). It is done by the invocation of the Spirit and the laying on of hands, according to I Tim. 4.14 and II Tim. 1.6. Ordained ministers are people who discerned their calls to ministry by personal prayer and reflection. This call has to be authenticated by the Church’s recognition of the gifts and graces of the person who wants to be ordained.

Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.

Rodrigo Serrao 

Baptist Faith and Message 1925, 1963 and 2000

1. Historical Background
1.1 The 1925 Confession
The Southern Baptist Convention’s confession of faith first came as an idea to prepare greetings of the convention to Baptists spread all over the world after World War I.[1] According to Lumpkin, this greeting took a shape of a statement of faith and was sent out after the 1919 SBC Annual meeting.
The statement of faith did not cover all the implications of Christian life. Lumpkin says that, “the statement was not a complete system of doctrine, for it lacked, for example, a section on eschatology.”[2] Therefore, new issues were being injected as they became evident in social life. One of the issues was over the evolutionary theory controversy. During the years of 1923 and 1924 several Baptist leaders got engaged in the task of refuting evolution teachings, and also in adding to the statement their position related to the issue. A committee was established “to consider the advisability of issuing another statement of the Baptist faith and message.”[3]
This committee started an enlargement of the Statement of faith of 1919 based on the New Hampshire Confession. The New Hampshire Confession of Faith influenced many institutions, especially associations and theological seminaries in the South during the nineteenth century.[4] However, modifications were made, such as the deletion of the articles 12 and 16, and changing of words on articles 7, 9 and 18. Plus the addition of sections on the “resurrection, the return of the Lord, religious liberty, peace and war, education, social service, cooperation, evangelism and missions, stewardship, and the Kingdom of God.”[5]
In 1925, during the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting, the new confession was presented. Even though the confession was very well elaborated, its intent was only to express the common faith of the Southern Baptists, and “it has never been looked upon as authoritative or binding.”[6]
The Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention decided to publish the Confession as a courtesy and in the year of 1929 the entire document was printed in pamphlets entitled Baptist Faith and Message.
Four ways of response took place after its publication: 1) The Strict-Confessionalists; 2) The Anti-Confessionalists; 3) The Mainstream Denominationalists; and 4) The Non-Confessionalists.[7]
1.2 The 1963 Confession
As Professor Dr Lefever once said to the Baptist Standard, “When we finally have adopted statements of faith, they usually have been in response to something.”[8] And it could not be different in this case. The 1963 Confession is fruit of a controversy that turned around a sense that the Southern Baptist Convention was becoming more and more liberal. In 1962, a professor of Old Testament at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBC seminary), named Ralph Elliott, published a book called “The Message of Genesis.” The book caused a discomfort in some Southern Baptists, due to some liberal views in its content. According to Hobbs, “this writer’s opinion in the book was not so much the cause as it was the occasion of the situation which developed following its publication.”[9] The protest emerged due to the fact that not only the seminary “belonged” to the SBC, but also the publishing house, Broadman Press. [10]
This crisis happened close to the annual meeting of San Francisco in 1962. Because of that, Porter Routh and Albert McClellan went to Oklahoma City to talk to the president of the convention, Herschel H. Hobbs, looking for a way to avoid major crisis during the meeting. They feared that the Convention would divide at the annual session.[11]
During the meeting in San Francisco, the president’s address was about the crisis that reached the Convention, “setting forth the place of historical criticism in the study and interpretation of the Scriptures”[12]
Even after the address, two motions were presented. The first one was given by a Texan named K. Owen White, to reaffirm Baptist faith, ending with “infallible Word of God.” The second was proposed by Ralph F. Powell from Missouri, to instruct the Sunday School Board to cease the publication of the book that caused the whole controversy. White’s motion was adopted, but Powell’s was withdrawn.
The “Committee on Baptist Faith and Message” was created to revise word by word the 1925 confession of faith. The intent of the committee was to revise and elaborate a confession that would be broad enough for all Southern Baptists to live happily with it. An interesting fact worthy of noting is that “every single item in the proposed statement was adopted by unanimous vote.”[13] In order to hear the opinions, suggestions and criticisms from others involved in theological literature, a copy of the original draft was sent to the presidents of the six Southern Baptist seminaries and to the executive secretary of the Sunday School Board.
The finished version was printed in parallel columns with the 1925 version of the confession. This model was requested to make it easy for the messengers to recognize the changes that took effect.
The following years showed that Elliott’s controversy (liberal theology) was still alive. The second phase of it was the suspicion of heresy from some Professors in SBC seminaries. The third in 1969 was related to The Broadman Commentary on Genesis. The commentary used liberal theology language, especially terms such as the JEPD documentary hypothesis. The fourth phase of the same controversy turned around the inerrancy of the Bible, and took place in Houston in 1979.[14]
1.3 The 2000 Confession
As we have seen so far, both the 1925 and 1963 confessions emerged as a reaction against “modernist controversies of the day”[15] (the teaching of Darwinian evolution as science (1925), and the Ralph Elliott controversy (1963)).
But, the question that arises now is why was there a need for a new revision of the Baptist Faith and Message in the year 2000?
In 1999, during the SBC annual meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, the announcement of the formation of a committee appointed by the President (Paige Patterson), to review in its entirety, the Baptist Faith and Message doctrinal statement was made. One of the reasons for the revision concerned an article added during the meeting in Salt Lake City in 1998. The article added was about family, and this addition was the first revision after 35 years. For some leaders, it was not enough.[16]
Again, the claim for a revision was birthed from the idea of the “fight” against cultural and societal challenges. Adrian Rogers, chairman of the committee for revision, in his report to Southern Baptist Convention, wrote:
New Challenges to faith appear in every age. A pervasive anti-supernaturalism in the culture was answered by Southern Baptists in 1925, when the Baptist Faith and Message was first adopted by this Convention. In 1963, Southern Baptists responded to assaults upon the authority and truthfulness of the Bible by adopting revsions to the Baptist Faith and Message. The Convention added an article on “The Family” in 1998, thus answering cultural confusion with the clear teachings of Scripture. Now, faced with a culture hostile to the very notion of truth, this generation of Baptists must claim anew the eternal truths of the Christian faith.[17]
As a result, on the fourteenth day of June of the year 2000, the revised version of the Baptist Faith and Message was presented during the SBC annual meeting in Orlando, Florida. It was approved by the majority of the messengers present in the event. The new version of the Baptist Faith and Message kept the language of the 1963 BFM intact, but at the same time, several changes were made “in an attempt to close ranks and define the SBC more conservatively.”[18]

2. Comparison
From 1845 to 1925 the SBC had an anti-confessional disposition. Some of the forces that helped them to behave this way could be listed as: 1) Separate Baptist revivalism, 2) Campbellite criticism, 3) Landmark ecclesiology, 4) the nature of the Southern Baptist Convention, and 5) the Southern and frontier culture.[19] Although Southern Baptists held this anti-confession feeling so strongly, they also were aware of their confessional heritage. This emerged particularly through the first Baptist association in the South, called Charleston Baptist Association, which adopted the Philadelphia Confession of Faith in 1767. It is also known as the Charleston Tradition.[20]
Evolution, Modernism and biblical inspiration were sufficient to change the Southern Baptists mind regarding their “anti” feeling. Therefore, in 1924 a committee was created and in 1925, during the annual meeting, the BFM was presented.
2.1 New Hampshire Confession and BFM 1925
The New Hampshire Confession served as the base for the Baptist Faith and Message of the year 1925. New Hampshire is considered the “only Confession of any note produced by American Calvinistic Baptists.”[21] This Confession was modified to amend the expression of faith held by Southern Baptists with the addition of ten new sections. As already noted in this paper, article twelve from the New Hampshire Confession which talks about Harmony of the Law and the Gospel, and article sixteen, about Civil Government, were totally deleted. The initial article that talks about The Scripture can be considered identical with New Hampshire’s article Declaration of Faith, except that the word “opinions” was changed to “religious opinion” in addition to a minor punctuation change. Hence the words “truth, without any mixture of error for its matter” was kept the same.[22]
Considerable changes happened on article seven about Regeneration. The text was greatly modified and it is hard to make any comparison. Because of the Calvinistic characteristics of the New Hampshire Confession (softly present), article nine about God’s purpose of Grace was also modified. In article eighteen, not only was the content altered, but also the title. In the New Hampshire Confession, the article’s title is, Of the world to come, whereas in the Baptist Faith and Message its title is Religious Liberty. Another characteristic that was already pointed out here is the inclusion of several new articles, such as, Education, Social Service, Cooperation, Evangelism and Missions, Stewardship, the Kingdom of God, and etc.
2.2 BFM 1925 and BFM 1963
According to Hobbs, the committee that analyzed and revised the BFM 1925 was cautious to not remove any basic truth from it. Some changes happened in order to clarify complex sentences, other changes were made to present explanations of doctrines in a more explicit statement. Another change was the reduction of the number of articles, from twenty-four in 1925 to seventeen in 1963. The articles on “God” and “Salvation” were enlarged in the BFM 1963, aiming a better explanation on each one[23].
The article on Scripture was simplified for reading matter. The words “We believe that” were deleted from the beginning of the statement and the statement “The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired” and “and is the record of God’s revelation of Himself to man” were added. The committee added a hermeneutical sentence about Jesus as the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted. This sentence would be removed later on with the new revision in 2000. The article on God, the BFM 1963 added the word “Redeemer” in the introduction to the longer threefold statement on God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The article on Man kept the same “substance,” but with certain additions on the BFM 1963. The 1963 committee chose “innocent” and “innocence” over “holiness” and “righteousness”. Thus the result of the fall is that men inherit, not “a nature corrupt and in bondage to sin” as it is stated in the BFM 1925, but a “nature and environment inclined toward sin” in BFM 1963. A good observation brought by Hobbs in his article on Southern Baptists and Confessionalism, was that at the time the committee was writing the article about Man civil rights was a primary issue in United States. Consequently, the article concludes like this: “The sacredness of human personality is evident in that God created man in his own image, and that Christ died for man; therefore every man possess dignity and is worthy of respect and Christian love.”[24]
On the article about Salvation the intention of the committee was the concision of the information of six articles: “The way of Salvation,” “Justification,” “The freeness of Salvation,” “Regeneration,” and “Sanctification.” In the matter of glorification, as mentioned in the BFM 1925, the 1963 version states “Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed.” The article on God’s Purpose of Grace became a combination of the ideas of articles “God’s Purpose of Grace” and “Perseverance” of the BFM 1925. Because of the misuse of the word “autonomy,” the BFM 1963 on the article about Church included the following statement: “This church is an autonomous body, operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In such a congregation, members are equally responsible.” In the Article about Baptism and Lord’s Supper two sentences were added regarding baptism. The first sentence was “an act of obedience” and the second was “to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead.” In the same article, but dealing with the Lord’s Supper, one whole phrase was modified while keeping the same sense. Whereas the BFM 1925 reads “in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ,” the BFM 1963 reads, “The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate his second coming.” Due to the problem of “social gospel” prevalence during the time when BFM 1925 was written, the article on The Kingdom also had a complete change in its sentences on its revised version of 1963.[25] The article on Last Things summarized in one sentence the essence of three articles of the BFM 1925: The “Righteous and the Wicked,” “The Resurrection,” and “The Return of the Lord.” Articles on Evangelism, Education, Stewardship, Co-operation, The Christian and the Social Order, Peace and War were slightly changed, some times adding words, other times deleting them. The only article exactly reproduced in the BFM 1963 was the one that talks about Religious Liberty.[26]
2.3 BFM 1963 and BFM 2000
Now we come to the ground of controversies. One of the things that Baptists are proud of is the fact that they are not a creedal people. The new revision came with some implicit sense which became more explicit later on of the creedal nature of the revision, especially with a statement like “instrument of doctrinal accountability.”
According to Russell H. Dilday, there are some positive factors in the revision, such as the non insertion of the controversial language of “inerrancy” like “inerrant.” Another non insertion considered a “scored point” was about eschatology, especially dispensasionalism views. Even under some criticism, the reinforcement of Baptist principles of soul competency and priesthood of believers were also a positive factor. The reaffirmation of most of historical Baptist convictions, and editorial changes, with gender inclusive language were also improvements that must be pointed out.[27]
Some changes were crucial to increase the debate involving the BFM 2000. The article on Scripture is probably where we find the centre of all the controversy. The sentence “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ” was completely deleted, and in its place, the committee added “All Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” Adrian Rogers, chairman of the study committee and three times SBC president said that the statement change happened “because it has been the subject of misunderstanding.” He also said, “We must not claim knowledge of Christ that is independent of Scripture or in any way in opposition to Scripture. Likewise, Scripture cannot be set against Scripture.”[28] The article on God added an entire sentence on God’s omniscience. The addition of this sentence has its motif on a new theological movement that advocates an openness of God which limits his knowledge about future events, called “Open Theism.” Another change is the word “triune” to describe God’s revelation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Many changes take place when we come to the article on Man. One sentence and one phrase were completely replaced, and the sentence “The gift of gender is thus part of the goodness of God’s creation” is added. The article on Salvation has the addition of the word “justification” and of the sentence “There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.” Another change would be in the format of the paragraphs, having “regeneration,” “justification,” “sanctification,” and “glorification” as separate outlines.[29]
The article on Church restructures the first three sentences and replaces the phrase, “committed to His teaching,” with, “governed by His laws.” Another addition and replacement of sentences can be found in the article Evangelism and Missions. Here, the sentence “The Lord Jesus Christ has commanded the preaching of the gospel to all nations,” was added, and the phrase “by personal effort and by all other methods,” was substituted with “by verbal witness undergirded by a Christian lifestyle, and by other methods.”[30]
Minor changes or no change at all can be found in the following articles: “God’s Purpose of Grace,” “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,” “The Kingdom,” “Last Things,” “Education,” “Stewardship,” “Cooperation,” “Peace and War,” and “Religious Liberty.” The article added in 1998 on the Family is the last found in the revised BFM 2000. Here one can also find content for discussion. “The language of this section supports unilateral submission rather than mutual submission”[31]

3. Analysis
3.1 From Anabaptist Confessions to BFM
The Baptist Confessions were among the last to be produced, appearing only in the late period of the Reformation. Most of denominational Confessions, such as Lutheran, Reformed, Presbyterian, and Congregational appeared in history before Baptist confessions. Of the many confessional statements written during the Reformation, the three most widely accepted are of the Lutheran tradition, Augsburg Confession (1530), of the Church of England, the Thirty-Nine Article (1563), and of the Presbyterians, the Westminster Confession (1646).[32] But, according to McGlothlin, all the Confessions written prior to Baptist Confessions were “the result of grafting Baptist views of baptism, church-membership, church government, and the relation between Church and State upon a Calvinistic or Arminian stock.”[33]
In 1527, the Anabaptist Michael Sattler wrote the “Schleitheim Confession.” Although this confession came before the emergence of the seventeenth-century Baptist tradition, some historians see affinities between Baptists and early dissenting groups, such as Anabaptists. In 1644, seven Particular Baptist congregations near London published their first confession of faith in fifty-three articles. This confession is best known as “The London Confession.” Then, during a time of great hardship, under the new Act of Uniformity (the restoration of the Stuart monarchy), the most influential confession of faith in the history of Baptists took shape. It is known in England as “The Second London Confession” (1677, 1689), but in America, its title is “The Philadelphia Confession” (1742).[34] The Philadelphia Confession of Faith was transplanted to the Charleston Baptist Association in South Carolina, and became “the most widely accepted, definitive confession among Baptists in America both North and South.”[35] When the Southern Baptist Convention was organized in Augusta, each of the 293 delegates was part of congregations and associations that had adopted the “Philadelphia/Charleston Confession of Faith.” In 1833, the Baptist Convention of New Hampshire published the “New Hampshire Confession” which was to have a far-reaching influence among Baptists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Through Brown and Pendleton’s manuals (The Baptist Church Manual and Church Manual), the New Hampshire Confession became widely accepted, especially among Southern Baptists, eventually transferring the Philadelphia Confession as the doctrinal standard of choice.[36]
3.2 BFM 1925, 1963 and 2000
In 1925, the SBC adopted its first denomination-wide confession, called “The Baptist Faith and Message.” The Baptist Faith and Message helped Southern Baptists to remain united in commitment to conservative evangelical theology, while the Northern Baptists were fragmenting into several competing denominational bodies due to their unwillingness to publish a confession and inability to agree on one.[37]
As one can notice, the adoption of a Confession was very positive for Southern Baptist life. The preamble of the BFM had five points that made clear the nature of that document, as they say, “we do not regard them as complete statements of our faith, having any quality of finality on infallibility.”[38] In opposition to any form of creed/confession for Southern Baptist, John J. Hurt wrote a short article entitled, “Should Southern Baptists Have a Creed/Confession? – No!” His main point rested on (besides the non creedal nature of the Southern Baptists) the insertion of phrases and sentences every time some moment of tension appeared in history. He says: “There have always been tensions of the moment which fade with history. Would we be inserting phrases, sentences and paragraphs from time to time as conventions looked at these?”[39]
Perhaps he was right. In 2000, another revision of BFM was made, but unfortunately, with some controversial modifications. Dr. Russell H. Dilday, lists twelve controversial points in the 2000 revision. 1)The deletion of the Christocentric criterion for interpretation of Scripture; 2) The diminishing of the doctrines of soul competency and priesthood of the believer; 3) The trend toward creedalism; 4) The diminishing of the doctrine of autonomy and freedom of the local church under the leadership of the Holy Spirit; 5) The trend toward Calvinism and mistrust of personal Christian experience; 6)The trend shifting Baptist identity from its Anabaptist, free church; 7) The narrow interpretation of the role of women in marriage; 8) The narrow interpretation of the role of women in the church; 9) The “Pandora’s box” concern – a fear of repeated future revisions to include favorite opinions; 10) The trend toward including a catalogue of specific sins; 11) The false accusation of neo-orthodoxy; and 12) Inconsistency.[40]
All the problems listed above could be diminished if and only if this new revision did not have the intention to force or induce enforcement on people to believe in it. One issue would be when an individual sees something that they consider doctrinally wrong and it is ignored. Another totally different thing is when one is forced to believe in something he/she disagrees with (under the charge of being cast out). According to Charles Deweese, “a confession is a document to which there is a voluntary response.” He also said, “A creed is a statement of belief which is in sense forced on a body – there is an attempt to achieve a level of uniformity or conformity.” Professor Dr Lefever adds, “A confession is something you use to find a common ground, and creed is something you use to force agreement or uniformity. That’s the difference in a nutshell.”[41]
Unfortunately what all feared happened, and little by little, missionaries, professors, seminaries, pastors, churches and also conventions were being asked to sign an affirmation of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. As expected, some of the people and institutions listed above did not sign the affirmation and were cut off from the SBC. A missionary couple who lived in Germany for more than 20 years could not come back to Germany as SBC missionaries because they refused to sign the document. In a recent letter to missionaries who have refused to sign the new BFM, Jerry Rankin who was the president of International Mission Board, wrote: “Allowance is provided for stating areas of disagreement. However, there cannot be flexibility in being unwilling to be doctrinally accountable and assure Southern Baptist that we will work in accord with our confession of faith and not contrary to it. To do so would erode the credibility and support of the IMB and bring into question your colleagues around the world.” He then added, “You are now serving in the 21st century, and it is important to recognize and support the organization and positions of the denomination with whom you serve, even if there are some areas of personal disagreement.”[42]
In response to several misunderstandings about whether Southern Baptists should or should not have a creed/confession, Joe T. Odle, published an article in 1979 exposing some points that gave SBC support for having a statement of faith. His points are summarized as follow: 1) adopting a statement of faith amounts to taking a doctrinal position, and taking such a position is scriptural; 2) it is a distinctive interpretation of the Scripture which makes people Baptists, and a statement of faith is needed to make that position clear; 3) Baptists never have hesitated to make their doctrinal position clear and have done that through the issuance of confessions setting forth their beliefs; 4) a confession of faith is needed for the teaching of our own people; and 5) a statement of faith is needed for the unity and fellowship of our people and a clear differentiation from others who do not believe as we do.[43]
Now, after this historical and contemporary exposition of the Baptist Faith and Message from both sides of the coin, we as Baptists are responsible to make our own choice based on our own conscience in faith, whether we will follow the confession or not.

Endnotes:

[1] W. L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1969) 390.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Walter B. Shurden, “Southern Baptist Responses to Their Confessional Statements,” Review & Expositor Winter 1979: 72.
[5] Herschel H. Hobbs, “Southern Baptists and Confessionalism: A Comparison of the Origins and Contents of the 1925 and 1963 Confessions,” Review & Expositor Winter 1979: 56.
[6] W. L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1969) 391.
[7] A good analysis of these four responses mentioned above can be found in the article written by Walter B. Shurden, “Southern Baptist Responses to Their Confessional Statements,” Review & Expositor Winter 1979.
[8] Mark Wingfield, “Baptists have debated creeds & Confessions for centuries,” Baptist Standard 26 Jun. 2000.
[9] Hobbs 57.
[10] Ibid 58.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage (Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1987) 680-681.
[15] Mark Wingfield, “Baptists have debated creeds & Confessions for centuries,” Baptist Standard 26 Jun. 2000.
[16] Mark Wingfield, “SBC to review Faith & Message,” Baptist Standard 23 Jun. 1999.
[17] The Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee. “Report of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee to the Southern Baptist Convention” June 2000: sbc.net Official website of the Southern Baptist Convention. 14 March 2006 <>.
[18] “Do Good Fences Make Good Baptists?” Christianity Today 07 August 2000: 36.
[19] Walter B. Shurden, “Southern Baptist Responses to Their Confessional Statements,” Review & Expositor Winter 1979: 69.
[20] Ibid 71.
[21] McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith 299.
[22] James Leo Garret, “Biblical Authority According to Baptist Confessions of Faith,” Review & Expositor Winter 1979: 43.
[23] Herschel H. Hobbs, “Southern Baptists and Confessionalism: A Comparison of the Origins and Contents of the 1925 and 1963 Confessions,” Review & Expositor Winter 1979: 61.
[24] Hobbs 62.
[25] Hobbs 65.
[26] Ibid 66.
[27] Russell H. Dilday, “An Analysis of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000,” Baptist Standard 30 Apr. 2001.
[28] Ken Camp and Dan Martin, “Baptist Faith & Message changes touch on Bible, gender, sexuality,” Baptist Standard 20 May 2000.
[29] Baptist Faith and Message Booklet, “1963 and 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statements: Comparison and Commentary. 14 Mar 2006 .
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Timothy George and Denise George, Baptis Confessions, Covenants, and Catechisms (Tennessee: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996) 5.
[33] McGlothlin, Baptist Confessions of Faith xi.
[34] Timothy George and Denise George 9.
[35] Ibid 11.
[36] Ibid 12.
[37] Hobbs 57.
[38] BF M, 1925.
[39] John J. Hurt, “Should Southern Baptist Have a Creed/Confession? – No!” Review & Expositor Winter 1979: 87.
[40] Russell H. Dilday, “An Analysis of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000,” Baptist Standard 30 Apr. 2001.
[41] Mark Wingfield, “Difference between creeds & confessions seen in application,” Baptist Standard 26 Jun. 2000.
[42] Charlie Warren, “Sign BF&M or don’t return to field, furloughing missionaries told by IMB,” Baptist Standard 21 Oct. 2002.
[43] Joe T. Odle, “Should Southern Baptist Have a Creed/Confession? – Yes!” Review & Expositor Winter 1979: 90+.

Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.

Rodrigo Serrao

O dia do meu aniversário foi assim...

...acordei às 6 e meia da manhã, fui para aula, depois fui trabalhar na Biblioteca. Larguei às 3 da tarde e fui na clínica da Baylor para ver a questão das vacinas que tenho que tomar para ir à viagem missionária. Depois, a convite dos meus roommates, fui jantar fora, à minha escolha e pago por eles. Comi pra caramba!! Bom, depois do rango, fomos para o Starbucks, comemorar ouvindo música ao vivo e tomando um Frappuccino (acho que é assim que se escreve).
Cheguei em casa quase 9 da noite para começar a estudar para uma prova que eu teria no outro dia as 8 da manhã (no caso hoje). Mas antes de estudar, ainda liguei para minha mãe para receber os parabéns da boca dela. Segundo ela eu sou o único aniversariante que liga para a pessoa para receber os parabéns.
Acho que por volta das 9 e meia (or so!) eu comecei a estudar para a prova. Eu estava com muito sono e cansado do longo dia. Uma luta entre o bem e o mal (estudar ou dormir, ahaha), se travou dentro de mim. Parecia que o mal prevalecia, quando eu tive a bendita idéia de tomar pó de guaraná. Talvez uns 20 minutos depois eu estava ligadão e consegui estudar até mais ou menos 1 e meia da manhã. O efeito do guaraná foi o suficiente para eu me concentrar no livro e absorver o que eu precisava para fazer um bom teste.
Hoje eu acordei às 6 da manhã, já reservei as minhas aulas para o próximo semestre e já fiz a prova, diga-se de passagem uma boa prova. Tenho uma aula daqui a pouco, às 10 e meia e depois vou trabalhar. Não vejo a hora de ir para casa dormir, para acordar no outro dia e começar tudo novamente.

Agradeço a TODOS que de alguma forma me parabenizou por ocasião do meu aniversário. Muitos foram os “locais de divulgação”, e em todos eles, pelo menos uma nota de parabéns foi postada. Agora é viver debaixo do peso de ter 28 anos. Blah! Não gostei dessa parte!!

Rodrigo Serrao

FELIZ ANIVERSÁRIO PARA VOCÊ !!!

PARABÉNS PRA VOCÊ, NESTA DATA QUERIDA, MUITAS FELICIDADES, MUITO ANOS DE DE VIDA!! VIVA VOCÊ RO, VIVA MESMO!!!!!



Parabéns, Feliz Aniversário, Deus te abençoe, Felicidades, nossa, se eu for escrever aqui tudo o que desejo para você, passarei muiito tempo!!

Ro, invado o teu espaço hoje para deixar uma homenagem para você, hummm, você ainda nem sabe!! Espero que goste do meu “atrevimento” ehehhe.

Hoje é o teu aniversário, o dia que o Senhor escolheu para te trazer ao mundo, e por isso, devemos nos alegrar em te ver completando mais um ano de vida, saudável, lindo, cheio de bênçãos, cheio de sonhos e objetivos. Nossa, o maior presente que o Senhor pode nos dá é justamente essa disposição e superação aos obstáculos da vida, e vejo Ro, que em relação a isso, você tem sido agraciado por Deus de forma grandiosa!!

Agradeço a Deus por mais um ano de sua vida, pelo prazer de, mesmo de longe, poder prestar a você alguma homenagem, de me fazer presente nesse dia que é seu!!

...Deleita-te no Senhor Ro, e ele satisfará os desejos do teu lindo coração ..., tenho visto as bençãos na tua vida, o quanto o nosso Pai te ama e tem tomado conta de você!!

Sinta-se abraçado e beijado por essa Dri aqui!! Quanto à entrada no teu blogg!! Foi por uma justa causa!! Eheheh

PARABÉNS RO E FELICIDADES 1000, NÃO SÓ HOJE, MAS, TODOS OS DIAS O DIA TODO!!

Deus te abençoe

Drizinha

As You Go

As You Go
A Scottish Benediction

As you go, may the Lord Jesus Christ
Go ahead of you as planner and preparer
of your way.

As you go, may the Lord Jesus Christ
Go behind you
as finisher and completer of all that is left undone.

As you go, may the Lord Jesus Christ
Be over you, watching over you and yours.

As you go, may the Lord Jesus Christ
be under you
to pick you up when you fall, and
you and I will.

But most of all, as you go, may the
Lord Jesus Christ
be in you, incarnating His love now and
forever more.

Amen and Amen

Anonymous

A Cruz

Porque a loucura de Deus é mais sábia do que os homens; e a fraqueza de Deus é mais forte do que os homens (1 Co. 1.25)

Os males da rotina

A rotina é algo que consegue tirar a motivação de qualquer pessoa. Muitos começam suas carreiras profissionais super motivados, até mesmo empolgados com a perspectiva de sucesso profissional, porém, anos depois, tudo o que existe são reclamações da rotina escravizante e sugadora das forças que mantém o ânimo e a alegria da vida. A rotina não é somente responsável por fazer do trabalho uma das piores coisas da vida (há excessões), mas também é responsável por destruir relacionamentos (de um simples namoro até um casamento sólido), por tirar a poesia da vida, por estagnar o ser humano, fazendo dele um ser mecânico, limitado aos hábitos do dia-a-dia, sem a coragem de enfrentar o novo ou desconhecido.
Entre várias definições para a palavra rotina, uma me chamou a atenção. Rotina significa obedecer normas, evitar alterações ou mudanças. Talvez e acho que eu esteja certo, a grande razão da rotina ser tão devastadora, é justamente o fator não-mudança. Ainda que o ser humano não sobreviva sem certos hábitos, do tipo, alimentar-se, escovar os dentes, tomar banho, dormir e acordar todos os dias, ainda certos padrões de comportamentos, o fator mudança sempre fará parte da vida humana. Por mais que os conceitos entre hábito e rotina sejam semelhantes, não creio que as duas palavras sejam sinônimas. Na verdade, creio que é impossível viver sem hábitos, porém, acho que sobreviveríamos sem a rotina.
A palavra rotina, em si, carrega uma conotação negativa, como algo que traz maus sentimentos para quem dela faz uso. Já o hábito, em muitos casos, é sinônimo até de preservação de algo. Como por exemplo, comportamentos adquiridos em processos habituais de seres humanos da mesma comunidade.
Creio que as coisas pioram quando fazemos do nosso relacionamento com Deus uma coisa “rotineira”, ou seja, mecânica. O fator não-mudança no relacionamento com Deus, pode paralizar e congelar a nossa vida com Ele. Deus não muda em Seus atributos, porém, sempre trará mudanças na vida do homem que quer se aproximar e crescer nEle (em graça e em conhecimento). Esta dinâmica de mutabilidade de um Deus imutável se dá porque Deus conhece a necessidade humana de crescer, de melhorar, de transformar, de mudar. E Ele oferece está vida abundante, para aqueles que querem e que se aproximam com as motivações corretas.
Infelizmente, a religião tem o poder de operar contrariamente ao que Deus pode fazer em nós. A religião pode se tornar uma catalisadora de rotinas na alma humana. E ao fazer isto, a religião se torna responsável em destruir a vida de alegria e de contentamento, como também de consciência das responsabilidades, de um relacionamento saudável entre Deus e os homens.
Concluo dizendo que também encontramos em nós uma parcela de culpa, quando deixamos o nosso relacionamento com Deus paralizar por conta do poder nocivo da rotina da religião. Sim, pois o fator comodismo neste caso tem um papel importantíssimo. A vida cristã não se limita aos sermões da igreja, à adoração na igreja, ou aos projetos feitos pela igreja. Nós somos muito mais responsáveis pela manutenção da nossa vida cristã, do que a igreja. A nossa saúde espiritual deve ser preservada, ainda que não tenhamos um prédio para irmos aos finais de semana. Ou até mesmo se tivermos um, mas o virmos como um lugar apenas para marcar presença. Em ambos os casos, repousa sobre nós a responsabilidade de não deixarmos que a rotina massacrante da vida e da religião, apague o amor e a chama da presença de Deus em nossos corações.

Rodrigo Serrão

Cansado

Estou cansado. Cansado fisicamente pelo tanto que leio. Parece que ler por um longo período de tempo tem o poder de cansar mais que um dia inteiro de exercícios físicos. Não estou frustrado com meu curso (Teologia), mas cansado. Na verdade, as vezes bate uma frustração-zinha lá no fundo da alma. As vezes me pergunto se não já sei o suficiente para falar sobre o Evangelho a toda criatura. As vezes me pergunto para que serve todo o conhecimento ensinado em Seminários. Gostaria de saber qual a porcentagem do uso de tudo aquilo para a vida prática, para os problemas reais da vida.
O conhecimento acadêmico tem o poder de seduzir as pessoas. Essa sedução se dá porque o conhecimento trás poder para quem o possui. E isto nem sempre me seduz!
De fato, resolvi aplicar para fazer uma viagem missionária neste verão, para permanecer vivo durante o meu tempo de Seminário, pois caso contrário, terei que encomendar um caixão para enterrar a minha alma. E foi esta a resposta que dei ao meu líder de grupo, no final-de-semana passado, quando ele me perguntou o porquê de eu querer ir à essa viagem missionária. Minha resposta foi simples e clara – Eu quero sobreviver ao sair do Seminário!!
Tenho me convencido mais e mais que não faz sentido se entregar a um chamado (ao ministério), se eu só fico estudando o dia inteiro (a carga de coisas para se estudar é tão grande que não se tem tempo para quase mais nada). Deixei de ver sentido nesta overdose de assuntos e teorias, e estou vendo que falta mais da prática dentro das instituições de ensino teológico.
Porém, quando digo prática, não me refiro a ministérios de igreja do tipo, professor de EBD, ministro de louvor, diretor de coral, ministério infantil, etc. Não vejo como prática algo que se limita às quatros paredes de um prédio. Acho que seremos muito mais úteis – e aqui falo aos seminaristas – do lado de fora das igrejas. Principalmente porque tudo que lá (igrejas) acontece segue uma rotina que mata qualquer um, principalmente aqueles quem já vivem em uma rotina permanente de estudos. Creio que o chamado de Deus para minha vida é para fora, para o mundo, para as pessoas “doentes”. Não que os de dentro também não estejam doentes (na maioria das vezes estão pior que os de fora). O que adianta sal dentro do saleiro e luz dentro de uma gaveta?
Tenho lutado cada dia mais contra a idéia de sistemas religiosos, principalmente aqueles que abusadamente falam sobre o Santo nome de Jesus (não acredito que Jesus veio à Terra para fundar uma religião). Não tenho visto nenhum sentido em sistemas que monopolizam o Soberano, clamando seguirem o Senhor Jesus (que é a encarnação do amor), mas que possuem uma história marcada de sangue, intolerância, guerras, desamor, ódio, manipulação, morte, etc. Essa é a história da “igreja” que tanto me entristece e me faz pensar milhões de vezes, se foi para isso mesmo que eu fui chamado. Sim, porque assim como todo sistema humano, uma vez dentro, ou você se “molda” a eles, ou inicia-se uma revolução, mas que com certeza não tem resultados positivos no final. Por outro lado, não me vejo fazendo outra coisa, que não seja ligado à pregação e ensino da Palavra.
Eu creio que ser discípulo de Jesus é outra coisa. Creio que o verdadeiro discípulo põe as mãos no barro da vida, e as suja! Ele se identifica com os esquecidos, os pecadores (como se houvesse alguem que não o fôsse), com os da periferia, com os pobres, com as viúvas, com os marginalizados, etc. Tiago disse no seu livro “A religião pura e imaculada diante de nosso Deus e Pai é esta: Visitar os órfãos e as viúvas nas suas aflições e guardar-se isento da corrupção do mundo.” (Tg 1.27).
O sociólogo Tony Campolo disse aqui onde eu estudo, que deveríamos ter cuidado com o pacote que é vendido em Seminários, pois nós não fomos chamados para fazer parte de instituições, fomos chamados sim, mas para pregar o Reino de Deus a toda a criatura. Ele disse que se tivéssemos que escolher entre título (diploma) e testemunho, que preferíssemos escolher testemunho.
O problema é que neste sistema mundano o título é a chave para se conseguir um “emprego”. Especialmente aqui nos EUA, onde a igreja é de fato uma grande empresa, onde tudo gira em torno de números, orçamentos e controle de qualidade.
Não sei o que me aguarda no futuro!
Minha oração é que eu chegue ao final da minha vida com a mais absoluta certeza de que não vendi a minha alma, e que consegui tanto o título, quanto o testemunho.

Rodrigo Serrão

Book Review - The Humanity of God

Barth’s work in this book does not focus on just one issue. On the contrary, the book is an answer for three major issues within Christianity: 1) The role of Theology, particularly in this case with 19th century theology; 2) Christology and the question of the humanity of God; and 3) Human freedom and the issue of Christian ethics. Each one of these issues is strongly connected but at the same time they can exist in complete independence and separation from each other.
Karl Barth is considered the greatest theologian of the 20th century not only because of his great works, especially Church Dogmatics, but also because he brought Christianity back to the near-forgotten orthodoxy. Barth wrote about 19th century theology (from Schleiermacher to Ritschl) and shed light on their theology by pointing out where they failed as theologians and the reasons for why that happened. Barth was aware of the cultural context where those theologians were involved, and how that particular culture negatively influenced the construction of a sound theology. Theologians of the 19th century were “first animated and nourished by Herder and the Romantics, as well as by the religious and national awakening of the Napoleonic era” (pg. 13). For Barth, theology had “turned into philosophy of the history of religion in general, and of Christian religion in particular” (pg. 13). He also says, “There was scarcely a theologian who did not also consider himself a professional philosopher” (pg. 21). Barth then moves towards several minor criticisms of the aspects of that theology, from ethics to spirituality, from the apathy of the Christian life to evangelistic zeal. Barth’s major resistance was against the thought of an exaggerated anthropocentrism that permeated and influenced many, if not all great theologians of the 19th century. Clearly the key word for this first essay would be anthropocentrism. It is here where all the difference is made. The question that rises when you approach 19th century theology could be who you will focus your attention upon the most, on man or on God?
Karl Barth’s second essay entitles the book. Although, for a distracted reader the subject discussed in this essay appears to have nothing to do with the first one. But in reality, there are connections between both essays. Actually, Barth’s Christology can be better compared to theologians from the age of reformation or even earlier than that, but it is in total disparity from the theology of the 19th century. Therefore, this essay could be seen as the orthodox or in Barth’s case the “neo”-orthodox response to the theology of the 19th century. His major thesis in this chapter is undoubtedly the doctrine of Christ, His humanity and His deity. For Barth, the knowledge of Christ’s humanity and deity cannot be derived from one another. They are strictly interrelated. He says on page 46, “It is precisely God’s deity which, rightly understood, includes his humanity.” For Barth, Jesus is the perfect expression of God. He says, “In Jesus Christ there is no isolation of man from God or of God from man” (pg. 46). And his humanity is the perfect link between God and man, “even the oddest, most villainous or miserable, as one to whom Jesus Christ is Brother and God is Father” (pg. 53). In Barth’s articulation of the glorious salvation provided by God to all men, he enters into a concept that can lead someone to think that he is defending universalism. On page 60 he states that “the human spirit is naturally Christian.” One may charge Barth as a defender of universalism. Even he recognizes the closeness of his teachings with the doctrine of universalism. He closes his view about salvation in Christ and the issue of universalism by saying that “we have no theological right to set any sort of limits to the loving-kindness of God which has appeared in Jesus Christ” (pg. 62).
He also brings up the concept of outsiders and insiders when he says that “the so-called ‘outsiders’ are really only ‘insiders’ who have not yet understood and apprehended themselves as such” (pg. 59). This essay contains some key words. The most evident ones are humanity, and deity. But we can also say that the word relationship plays a great role in Barth’s teaching of the humanity of God, especially among the persons of the Trinity.
Following a logical sequence, Karl Barth takes us to his last essay of the book. Now we come to the application of what has been discussed so far. We come to the issue of Christian freedom. He starts speaking about God’s own freedom, and then he moves towards man’s own freedom. For Karl Barth, the freedom of man is totally tied to the freedom of God. For him, God’s freedom is the source of human freedom (pg. 71). In relating human freedom to God’s, Barth erases the thought of an “I can do whatever I want” type of freedom. He says that “God’s freedom is essentially not freedom from, but freedom to and for” (pg. 72). And he connects this type of freedom with human freedom. Personally, I think that Barth’s idea of “human freedom is freedom only within the limitations of God’s own freedom.” does not make me feel totally comfortable. I cannot think of a God that is limited in any circumstance, even by His freedom. But, on the other hand, I agree with him when he limits man’s freedom. This is why this major thesis of human freedom breaks up in the minor thesis of Christian ethics. Freedom is related to the grace of God, and grace upon man. Barth says, “Human freedom is the gift of God in the free outpouring of His grace” (pg. 75). And he concludes by saying “the gift is total, unequivocal, and irrevocable. It remains the gift of freedom even though it may be turned into man’s judgment if misunderstood or misused” (pg. 76). Perhaps the reason that Barth ties men’s freedom with God’s freedom is to not leave room for the possibility of sin. Indeed, Barth says that “in human freedom there is no room for sin by fiat” (pg. 77). Furthermore, Barth will say that human freedom is to accomplish the causa Dei in the world. This will be the mission of each Christian, as he says, “this is the meaning of God’s covenant with man…this is the freedom of discipleship bestowed upon him” (pg. 81).
As a second part of this third essay, Barth concentrates on Christian ethics and its implications after his teachings on human freedom. He states that “ethics is reflection upon what man is required to do in and with the gift of freedom” (pg. 87). For him, a proper understanding of the freedom offered by God to His children, will determine a correct manner to proceed in all nuances of life. A misunderstanding of this freedom, will compromise human conduct and relationship with the One who deliberates this freedom.
He concludes by speaking about the “special ethics” of free theologians, and all the implications that follow this concept. He calls this theme “the ethics of theology itself and the ethos of the free theologians” and for him it is a “small and often neglected area” (pg. 89). It is interesting to notice that he starts the book with an overall view on 19th century theology and theologians, and finishes it by talking about theologians and theology as well. Barth points out five characteristics that make a free theologian complete. For him, a free theologian will always begin his thinking at the beginning (talking about the resurrection of Christ), will be scripturally supported, will not be ashamed of his philosophical views, will think and speak in the context of the Church and will always be in communication with other theologians.
Undoubtedly, the word free and freedom play the major role in Barth’s last essay. He articulates with talent all the implications of these two words in the life of the people of God, bringing a full understanding of this controversial issue.

Rodrigo Serrao

Caldeirão

Sei que ultimamente não tenho escrito textos de interesse mais amplo na língua portuguesa, com ênfase no cotidiano da vida cristã. Acho que para piorar, os textos que tenho escrito recentemente são trabalhos acadêmicos que muitas vezes não interessa a quase ninguém.
Estou ciente disto, porém, mesmo sem está escrevendo, tenho lido, visto e ouvido a muitos aqui.
A comparação disto seria como alguém que apenas observa, mas que quase não abre a boca para falar. Tenho lido, sobre quase tudo no campo da teologia, entre teólogos liberais, ortodoxos, neo-ortodoxos, neo ou pós-liberais. Tenho lido teologia produzida no Brasil (de boa e de má qualidade), nos EUA (idem), na Europa, e até na Africa.
O caldeirão de idéias não pára por aí. Tenho feito amizades com pessoas de diferentes religiões, culturas e histórias. Com isto, eu vejo como se comportam pessoas que são de orientação cristã da India, da Alemanha, da Africa, da China ou Korea. Outras que não são cristãos, mas pertencem à religião oficial dos seus respectivos países, como Hindus do Nepal, ou Mulçumanos da Turquia. Todos estes trazem ao caldeirão da minha vida as suas experiências, suas lutas e suas esperanças. E eu não sou cego para que não veja a diversidade de cada indivíduo neste grande spectrum de ideologias e crenças.
Porém, ainda que pareça que tudo isto seja suficiente, ainda posso dizer que tem mais. Congrego em uma igreja Batista, localizada no coração do Texas, no que chamamos de “Bible Belt”, ou seja, o cinturão da Bíblia. Ou como outros preferem chamar, os “Southern Baptists” que quer dizer Batistas do Sul. Esta região, e mais especificamente este grupo Batista, pode ser considerado um dos grupos religiosos mais fundamentalistas do planeta. Em dizendo isto, não quero trazer nenhuma conotação negativa, nem tão pouco positiva. Isto é apenas uma característica que eu estou apontando. Tenho ouvido semana após semana, os sermões que procedem da boca de pregadores de diversas partes do Estado do Texas. Também tenho parado em salas de aula do Seminário, para ouvir teólogos (as) e historiadores. Cheguei ao ponto de ouvir até a esposa de um dos professores que falava sobre o papel da esposa do pastor e sua influência sobre a congregação. Cada um destes que citei acima das mais diferentes linhas de pensamento, posições e ações. Portanto, dá para se notar que tenho “ouvido” bastante.
A sensação que eu tenho é que todas essas influências estão de certa forma sendo processadas em meu cérebro, onde juntamente com a leitura da Bíblia, especialmente em uma perspectiva totalmente Cristocêntrica, não apenas em termos teológicos, mas também em termos hermenêuticos, ou seja, Jesus (vida e ministério) como a única lente da interpretação bíblica, e a cruz do Calvário como a demonstração maior do amor e graça de Deus sobre os homens, trazendo sobre mim a noção de que eu não sei de quase nada e que Deus é mistério puro.
Sei que estou sendo bastante relativo e pluralista, mas quando se vive neste caldeirão, apenas os que não tem uma mente crítica, ousaria dizer que sabem alguma coisa. Quando saímos do nosso mundo, da nossa realidade, da nossa segurança, e partimos para aquilo que não conhecemos, percebemos que existem muito mais realidades fora, onde meus olhos não alcançam, do que dentro, onde eu posso até tocar com as minhas mãos.
E o resultado de tudo isto? Seria bom ou mau? Trágico ou esperançoso? Para a vida ou para a morte? Não sei! O que sei é que hoje, mais do que nunca, creio que existe um Deus acima de mim, que não ama apenas as pessoas dos mais variados segmentos religiosos, mas que ama o mundo inteiro igualmente. Sei que existe um Jesus, que caminhou neste planeta, que amou aqueles que não mereciam e nEle a plena divindade e a plena humanidade se encontraram e se beijaram. Isto são convicções que estão arraigadas em meu coração e que de lá não sairão jamais. O resto eu não sei, e creio que jamais vou saber em sua completude, e não tenho medo de confessar isto. Sou relativo e estou em processo, e assim estarei até o dia em que o Senhor da vida me levar. Enquanto isto não acontece, eu leio, vejo e ouço o que todos dizem ser a verdade para elas. E quanto mais faço isto, mais eu me lembro das palavras de Jesus que diz: “Ame o teu Deus de todo o teu coração, e ao teu próximo como a ti mesmo”. É neste caldeirão, onde eu vejo o amor de Deus e onde eu tenho a oportunidade de mesmo em meio aos mais diferentes estilos de vida e de adoração, mostrar e viver o amor de Deus através da minha consciência em Jesus Cristo, como o único Senhor e Salvador da humanidade.

No amor de Cristo,

Rodrigo Serrão

Exegesis on Mark 5.1-20

Gerasene Demoniac: Mark 5.1-20
(All Scripture references are taken from the New Revised Standard Version)
I - Introductory Matters
A. Biblical Context

1. Author:
a. Anonymous
“The second Gospel, like the other three, is anonymous. It does not even allude to authorship (Cf. Lk 1.1-4; Jo 21.24)” (Guelich, Intro, xxv).

b. Early Church Tradition
“There is a strong and clear early tradition that Mark was its author and that he was closely associated with the apostle Peter, from whom he obtained his information about Jesus” (Wessel, 605). “But who was Mark? The answer has generally been based on information from a lost five-volume work of Papias, the bishop of Hieropolis cited by Eusebius” (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15):
“Traditionally, ‘Mark’ has been identified with the Mark of 1 Pet 5.13; Acts 12.12-25; 13.13; 15.37-39 and the Pauline corpus. He was ‘John Mark’”. (Guelich, Intro, xxviii).

2. OT Comparisons: Prophet Isaiah

a. “Isa. 65.1-15 contains what could be read by the church as an allusion to Jesus’ entering the Decapolis” (65.1).
b. “Those ‘who sit in tombs, and spend the night in secret places; who eat swine’s flesh’” (v. 4)
c. “who say, ‘Keep to yourself, do not come near me’” (v. 5).
d. “The LXX adds to v. 3b, ‘burning incense upon bricks to demons (tois daimoniois - tois daimonios) which have no existence” and to v. 11, “who set a table for the demon (to daimonion - to daimonion; Heb., “Fortune”)” (Wink’s endnotes, 183).

3. Exorcisms in the Gospels
a. Synoptic Gospels

(1) Man with Unclean Spirit in Synagogue at Capernaum
(Mark 1:23-28, Luke 4:33-37) (Just, catholic-resources.org)
(2) Beelzebul Controversy
(Mark 3:22-30, Matt 12:22:30, Luke 11:14-15) (Ibid.)
(3) Gerasene Demoniac
(Mark 5:1-20, Matt 8:28-34, Luke 8:26-39) (Ibid.)
(4) Syro-Phoenician Woman's Daughter
(Mark 7:24-30, Matt 15:21-28) (Ibid.)
(5) Boy with an Epileptic Spirit
(Mark 9:14-29, Matt 17:14-21, Luke 9:37-43a) (Ibid.)
(6) Another Exorcist
(Mark 9:38-41, Matt 10:42, Luke 9:49-50) (Ibid.)

b. Gospel of John
“There are no exorcism stories in the Gospel of John” (Ibid.).

4. Synoptic Comparisons
a. Matthew 8.28-34 – Matthew’s narrative of this passage calls the place where the event took place the country of the Gadarenes, instead of, Gerasenes as Mark and Luke do. Matthew’s narrative reports two demon possessed people. Mark and Luke only repot one. Also, Matthew’s account is shorter including only 6 verses, whereas, Mark’s account has 20 verses and Luke 13.

b. Luke 8.26-39 – Luke follows Mark’s narrative, omitting some information, for instance Mark’s verses 3-5.

B. Social-Cultural Context
1. The Decapolis: Home of Gentiles
“The social location of this passage is crucial. For this is Jesus’ first entry into the Decapolis, ten proud Greek cities founded or enlarged by Alexander the Great and his successors and settled with Macedonian veterans.” (Wink, 44)

2. Gerasa
“Boasted of a temple to Zeus Olympus (to whom pigs were sacrificed) and, from 22-23 C.E. on, a temple dedicated to the cult of Caesar. Pompey brought them under Roman control. Augustus awarded Gadara, Hippos, and Scythopolis to Herod; when the Gadarenes failed in their petition against Herod’s cruelty they suffered even more cruelty.” (Ibid.)

C. Literary Criticism: Features that raise questions on how many different authors
(Several features raise the question whether, despite the smooth flow of the narrative as a whole, more than one hand has shared in fashioning the story as we have it.)

1. Doublets and repetitions
“Verses 2 and 6 (Jesus meeting the demoniac), vv. 3 and 5 (the demoniac’s home in the tombs, vv. 10 and 12 (the request of the demon), vv. 14 and 16 (the swineherds’ account of the incident)” (Rudolf, 351)

2. Afterthoughts
“Verse 6 (the demoniac had seen Jesus from a distance), v. 8 (Jesus had ordered the demon to leave the man), v. 15c (the remainder that the demoniac had had the legion), v. 16b (the swine are mentioned as an afterthought)” (Ibid.).

3. Discrepancies
“Between v. 2 and 6 (Jesus met the demoniac immediately on leaving the boat/the demoniac saw Jesus from a distance and ran towards him)” (Ibid.).

4. Use of a different vocabulary
“Verse 2 mnhmeiwn(mnemeion), v. 3 and v. 5 mnhma (mnema), vv. 15 e 16 daimonizomenoV (daimonizomenos) and v. 18 daimonisqeiV (daimonistheis)” (Ibid.).

D. Different approaches
1. René Girard’s interpretation of the passage
René Girard is a famous French Philosopher, Historian and Philologist (those who study ancient texts and languages) who has approached the passage of the Gerasene demoniac in a totally unique manner. “According to René, the townspeople have a more deep relationship with the Demoniac. He argues that it is really possible to fashion chains too powerful for anyone to break. ‘The Gerasenes and their demons have for some time settled into some sort of cyclical pathology,” Girard writes” (Wink, 45). “In short, the possessed man had become a perpetual scapegoat for the community. It is curious that the swineherds asked Jesus to leave in response to a healing that supposedly, they wanted. Girard argues that the swineherds were actually angry over being deprived of their scapegoat” (Andrew, ATR, fall 1998). The townspeople need him to act out their own violence. “The possessed imitates the Gerasenes who stone their victims, but the Gerasenes also imitate their possessed. It is a relationship of doubles and mirrors that exist between persecuted and this persecuting persecuted individual. The relationship is one of mimetic antagonism” (Wink, 46).
2. Father Cyrille Argenti’s symbolic approach
Father Cyrille Argenti is a priest of the Greek Orthodox Church in Marseille. His views on Mark 5.1-20 have interesting meditation insights.
He says: “So you notice that before exorcising the evil spirits from the demoniac, he [Jesus] first calms the waves. And this reminds what takes place in the Orthodox ceremony of Baptism. Before christening the child or the adult, in other words, before freeing him from bondage to the enemy, we bless the water – a sign that Christ restores not only the fallen man but the whole fallen creation . . . First he [the demoniac] is in chain and fetters. When man falls under the power of the devil, he becomes a slave” (Argenti, 401). “He [St. John Chrysostom] mentions first who have become slaves of erotic passion. Passion makes a man loses his freedom. But, he stresses more another form of slavery. He speaks of avarice” (ibid, 402).

II - Exegesis Proper
A. Jesus and the Demoniac (v. 1-13)

1. Description of the Demoniac (v. 1-5)

a. Verse 1 – They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes
“By its repetition of the preposition eiV, the Greek text draws attention to the two fold description of the location. It is firstly “the other side of the sea” (a purely geographical location), but it is also “the country of the Gerasenes” (an ethico-religious indication). Far from being accidental, this wealth of detail is extremely significant” (Starobinski, 382). Or perhaps “The very name ‘Gerasa’, which may be a fanciful allusion to the Hebrew grs, ‘to drive out, cast out, expel’” (Wink, 43).

(1) Place’s name controversy or dilemma
Gerashnwn - in Mark and Luke you read – Gerasenes - (30 miles from the shore)
Gadaphnwn - in Matthew the name of the place is – Gadara - (6 miles from the shore)

(2) A better option
“Gergeshnwn - the similarity of name indicates that it has been confused with the nearer Gergesa” (Gould, 87). “A ruin much nearer the shore and called Khersa has been discovered and may have been in the district subject to Gadara” (Turlington, 307). “Not far from this site there is a cliff within forty meters of the shore and some old tombs” (Wessel, 657).

b. Verse 2 – And when he had stepped out of the boat
(1) Chronological Tension
“Many interpreters have noted the chronological tension between this story, which transpires during the day, and the previous one, which occurs during the night” (Guelich, 277).

(2) No Tension
“This position is not held by Wessel: Since it was already evening (Cf. 4.35) when they started across the lake, by the time they reached the other side it was probably dark” (Wessel, 657).

c. Verse 2 continued – Immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him
“First of two encounters (Cf. 5.6)” (Guelich, 277). “Verse 6 clarifies the situation. The man actually saw Jesus from a distance and came running to him” (Wessel, 657)

d. Verses 3-5 – He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones.

(1) Markan Exclusivity
These verses are exclusive to Mark’s account of the passage.

(2) Why Cemeteries?
“Cemeteries were believed to be the abode of demons” (Anderson, 148)

(3) Characteristics of Madness
“Talmudic prescriptions provide four tests of madness: spending the night in a grave, tearing one’s clothes, walking around at night, and destroying anything given. All such signs are present in this case” (Mann, 278).

(4) Midrashic Development
“The break coupled with reference to the man’s dwelling and the presence of five hapax legomena may support the thesis that the verses represent a midrashic development of the tradition based on Isa 65.4-6 and Ps 67.7” (Guelich 277).

2. Demoniac’s Encounter with Jesus (v. 6-10)

a. Verse 6 – When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him;
(1) From a distance - apo makroqen (apo makrothen)
“This verse resumes and develops the action in 5.2 (Anderson, 148). It is possible that in this verse we find some slight evidence for the two narratives telescoped in Matthew. In this verse the story is resumed, but here the demoniac sees Jesus from a distance, while in v. 2 Jesus meets him as soon as he leaves the boat” (Mann, 278).

(2) The Demoniac’s Plea
“He must have supposed in his demented condition that by prostrating himself before Jesus, by asking him not to meddle with him, by identifying him as Jesus, Son of the Most High God, and by his plea in God’s name not to torment him, maybe Jesus would leave him alone” (Turlington, 308)

b. Verse 7 – And he shouted at the top of his voice, “what have you to do with me, Jesus, son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.
(1) The Most High God
“The specific name “the Most High God” has particular relevance for this “gentile” setting, since it almost always occurs in the LXX on the lips or in the context of Gentiles” (Guelich, 279).

(2) Demoniac’s Intention
“Although his rushing up to prostate himself before Jesus suggests a gesture of worship appropriate to Jesus’ identity, the demoniac’s words reflect a desire to drive Jesus away that is characteristic of the exorcism genre” (Perkins, 583; Wessel, 657). “To keep the Son of God off their back – to protect themselves” (Garland, 204).

c. Verse 8 – For he had said to him, “come out of the man, you unclean spirit!" (1) Command not obeyed?
“Without doubt, the comment stands in awkward tension with what has gone before by implying a previous ineffectual command for the unclean spirit to come out of the man. Thus, Haenchen (192-3) attributes this to a redactor’s misunderstanding of 5.2-7” (Guelich, 280).

(2) Harmonizing the tension
“Jesus had been saying (the verb is imperfect) to the unclean spirit, Come out of the man. However, the deep distress of the man was not readily banished. So Jesus began asking him (again the verb is imperfect and implies some repetition), what is your name?” (Turlington, 308). “Was already saying - elegen (elegen) - This imperfect tense may be used as a pluperfect, ‘he had been saying’, or even in a Semitic sense of ‘command’, but we have attempted to suggest that Jesus was repeating the injunction – a simple command was insufficient, given the gravity of the case. In this view, the question in v. 9 is far more explicable” (Mann, 279)

d. Verse 9 – Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” he replied, “my name is legion; for we are many.”

(1) What’s in a name?
“Typically, this request for the name represents a ploy used by the exorcist in gaining control over the spirit”. (Guelich, 280)

(2) Origin
“There was the Hebrew word Ligyon from the Latin legion. It is possible that a Semitic word denoting host or legion has been translated by Mark into the nearest Latin word” (Ibid)

(3) Legion
“For we are many” - oti polloi esmen (oti polloi esmen) - makes clear that the ‘name’ primarily connoted a vast number rather than an identity by which the exorcist might gain control over the unclean spirit. (Ibid)

(4) Conclusion
“Whatever was the name, it signified a host of evil spirits which made their human host both homicidal and suicidal” (Bowman, 143-44). “Jesus does not confront just one unclean spirit but a whole body of Satan’s troops” (Williamson, 105).

e. Verse 10 – And he begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country.
‘“Out of the country” - exw thV cwraV. (ego tes koras) - what preferences they (the demons) should have for one country over another is one of the mysteries connected with these stories of demoniacal possession. It can be explained only as part of the hallucination of the demoniac” (Gould, 91, Guelich, 281)

3. Jesus Deliverance of the Demoniac (v. 11-13)
a. Verse 11 – 13 – Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; and the unclean spirits begged him, “send us into the swine, let us enter them.” So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.

(1) Pig Characteristics
“When the unclean spirit entered the pigs they became utterly “unpiglike”. Nothing is more certain than that pigs do not move as herds. They are very liable to panic, and then they scatter. The miracle in the story lay in the pig’s forming themselves up to two thousand strong, and rushing over the cliff.” (Duncan, 5)

(2) Evil Spirit Characteristics
“It was popular belief in the first century that evil spirits were not content to wander aimlessly about. They abhor a vacuum and want to inhabit something. A human is best, wanting that, a bunch of pigs will do” (Garland, 204).

(3) Morality issues – Jesus vs. Animal Protective Association
(a) Does Jesus care about animals?
“Why did Jesus, having exorcised the demons, allow them to enter the pigs, an act that ultimately resulted in the destruction of the entire herd? A tentative answer is that Jesus wanted to give tangible evidence to the man and to the people that the demons had actually left him and that their purpose had been to destroy him even as they destroyed the pigs” (Wessel, 658).

(b) A Jewish account
“Some have explained it as a “Jewish” story originally, as though this unintended slur made it more palatable for “Christian” readers. If, as has been suggested, this part of the story stems from a later expansion of an earlier exorcism story set in Gerasa, we only ignore the question by arguing that Jesus did not actually destroy someone’s herd of swine” (Guelich, 282-83).

B. Jesus and the Townspeople (v. 14-17)
1. Verse 14-15 – the swineherds ran off, and told it in the city and in the country. Then people came to see what it was that had happened. They came to Jesus, and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion; and they were afraid.

a. Contrast in the narratives
“There is a contrast in the narratives of Matthew and Mark at this point. In Mark the dwellers in the countryside - agrouV (agrous) - come out to see the demoniac, whereas in Matthew Jesus is the center of attention” (Mann, 280)

b. Community reaction
“When the community arrives, they are not frightened by what has happened to the pigs but by seeing this man now clothed and in his right mind! They do not rejoice at his recovery but are afraid” (Garland, 205). Or perhaps “Their fear was no doubt caused by the presence of one with power to perform such a miracle” (Wessel, 658).

c. Were they also possessed?
“The crowd’s desire to be rid of Jesus, their discomfort in his presence, demonstrates that they too, are in fact demon possessed, subjected to a power or powers hostile to the Kingdom of God” (Williamson, 106)

2. verses 16-17 – Those who had seen what had happened to the demoniac and to the swine reported it. Then they began to beg Jesus to leave their neighborhood.
“This is the only case in our Lord’s ministry in which his miracles operated against him in this way, and it is to be accounted for by the strange element in this case, the mixture of gain and loss in the result” (Gould, 93). For them, Jesus was a dangerous person to have around the district.

C. Jesus and the Demoniac, conclusion (v. 18-20)
3. Verse 18-20 – As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him. But Jesus refused, and said to him, “go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you.” And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed.

a. Work done
“Although the exorcism story proper ends with the evidence that the man has been healed, this episode has been expanded to provide Jesus with his first Gentile missionary. Mark concludes the episode by presenting the man as a missionary in the cities of the Decapolis.” (Perkins, 584-85) “Haenchen (195) notes that Jesus leaves because his work is completed, not because he has been defeated by either the demons or by the people’s rejection of his ministry” (Guelich, 284).

b. Contrast of commands
“The command that Jesus gave is in marked in contrast to Jesus’ instructions to the cleansed leper in 1.44 – ‘See that you don’t tell this to anyone.’ This is probably because in the case of the demoniac Jesus was in Gentile territory where there would be little danger that popular messianic ideas about him might be circulated.” (Wessel, 659)

c. Decapolis (See also Social-Cultural Context in the beginning of this exegesis)
“The Decapolis was a league of ten originally free greek cities located (except Scythopolis) on the east of the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. They had been organized on the Greek model during the Seleucid period, brought under Hasmonean control by John Hyrcanuns, and liberated by the Roman general Pompey” (Wessel, 659). “Josephus mentions it four times, but Pliny gives us our earliest list of the ten cities (Damascus, Philadelphia, Rapana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippo or Hippos, Dion, Pella, Galasa or Gerasa, Cantha)” (Guelich, 286).

d. Yahweh or Jesus?

(1) Lord as God
“kurioV (kurious) - Lord – The message Jesus gives him (demoniac) does not concern our Lord (Jesus) himself, but God, to whom kurios evidently refers” (Gould, 94).

(2) Lord as Jesus
“Undoubtedly ‘Lord’ in v. 19, kurios, means Yahweh. However, it was applied by early Christians to Jesus and this is what the ex-demoniac takes it to mean (v. 20)” (Bowman, 144).

(3) Lord as God and Jesus
“The change from Lord (verse 19) to Jesus (verse 20) serves to illumine the Marcan idea that in Jesus quit particularly and concretely the very grace and mercy of God are experienced” (Anderson, 150)

III – Conclusions
A. Christology
“Without any doubt, the passage in a whole has a single point: the amazing power of Jesus” (Williamson, 103). Jesus is the one who delivers humanity from the power of Satan. It is very clear that Jesus went to the other side of the sea with a specific purpose. His passage by that region was remarkable. He not only showed His love, care and power, but He also “prepared” and sent a missionary for that community. Even for those who went to Him, asking Him to leave; Jesus will always be remembered as the one who had power over the evil spirits and the one who destroyed the herd of swine. There was also another group of people in that district who, “were amazed” when they saw and heard the ex-demoniac speaking about the encounter that changed his life forever.

B. Conflict
As we can see above, there are many tensions within the passage. The correct location of the event, the number of possessed men, a command not obeyed, and the morality problem with the destruction of the herd of swine.

C. Implication
“The possessed man’s encounter with Jesus made him fully human again, with a family, a home, and a mission in life. He was no longer a beast whom people thought needed to be tamed, but a human being called to proclaim the explosion of God’s mercy in his life” (Garland, 212).
The real existence of evil forces is also another implication to be pointed out from this episode. Western society is becoming more and more unaware of demons and their power. What happens today is a tenebrous attraction to what is considered evil and dark (in a spiritual sense). The growing number of movies and books that exalt black magic, witchcraft, vampires, werewolves, demons and all kinds of evil beings has extremely increased in our age. Others - including Christians - are totally skeptical and do not believe at all in the existence of these forces.

Bibliography

Anderson, Hugh. The New Century Bible Commentary. Black, Matthew ed. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., Grand Rapids, 1976.
Argenti, Cyrille. "Meditation on Mark 5:1-20." Ecumenical Review 23 (O 1971): 398-408.
Bowman, John, The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggadah. Boer, P. A. H. ed. Netherlands: Leiden E. J. Brill, 1965.
Derrett, J. Duncan M. "Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 3 (Ap 1979): 2-17.
Garland, David E., The NIV Application Commentary: Mark. Muck, Terry ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.
Gould, Ezra P. Rev, The International Critical Commentary: Critical and Exegetical Commentary: The Gospel According to St. Mark. Driver, Samuel R., Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs ed. Edingurgh: T&T Clark Ltd, 1983.
Guelich, Robert A., Word Biblical Commentary. Hubbard, David A., and Glenn W. Barker ed. Dallas, Texas: Word Books Publisher, 1989.
Just, Felix. “Demons and Exorcisms in the Gospels.” 9 October 2005. Catholic Resources for Bilbe, Liturgy, and More. 01 February 2006
Kleist, James A. b. 1873. "The Gadarene Demoniacs." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 9, no. 1 (Ja 1947): 101-105.
Mann, C. S., The Anchor Bible Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. first edition, Albright, William F., and David N. Freedman ed. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1986.
Marr, Andrew. Anglican Theological Review, fall 1998.
Perkins, Pheme. The New Interpreter's Bible. Keck, Leander E. ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995.
Pesch, Rudolf. "Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac." Ecumenical Review 23 (O 1971): 349-376.
Starobinski, Jean. "Essay in Literary Analysis: Mark 5:1-20." Ecumenical Review 23 (O 1971): 377-397.
Turlington, Henry E., The Broadman Bible Commentary. Allen, Clifton J. ed. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1969.
Wessel, Walter, W., The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Gaebelein, Frank E. ed. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.
Williamson, Lamar, Jr. Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Mays, James Luther ed. Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1983.
Wink, Water. Umasking the Powers the Invisible Forces that Determine Human Existence. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

__________________________
Rodrigo Serrao
February 03, 2006