Scripture in the Public Square: The Fuller-Wayland Debates

Introduction

In a letter written to the editor of the Christian Reflector on November 7, 1844, Richard Fuller of Beaufort, South Carolina articulated his belief that the institution of slavery was not a moral evil.  Fuller, a learned Baptist minister, yielded to the Christian scriptures, arguing that though the Bible condemns the abuses of slavery, the system itself is permitted.  Citing both Old and New Testament examples, Fuller presented evidence for his position from an authority that held high esteem with the Baptist publication to which he was writing.  However, Baptists in the North would reject Fuller’s arguments, and the subsequent response of Brown University president and Baptist minister Francis Wayland would provide an alternative argument, which also yielded to the authority of the Bible.

            Wayland’s response would come in the form of a series of letters, presenting a diverse and multi-faceted attack on the institution of slavery.  Fuller would respond with his own series of letters, and the Christian Reflector would publish this correspondence from November of 1844 until February of 1845.  This public debate would reveal the congenial and friendly approaches of two Christian brothers in the midst of a volatile, and at times, hostile debate.  According to Wayland, the writings of Fuller would, “in many cases modify the views, and in still more the feelings, of Christians at the North”[1].  His hope was that his writing would do the same in the South.

            Not only do these letters give an example of Biblical debate in the public square, but they also illustrate the potential for heated dialogue void of personal attack and defamation of character.  Both Fuller and Wayland employed Christian scripture in defense of their position, and did so in a manner that encouraged further dialogue.  These alternative positions were lain out for the public through the publication of the Christian Reflector, and their rhetoric reveals two friends united as Baptists and Christians.  Though debate on issues of the utmost importance are not easily held with such congeniality, the efforts of Fuller and Wayland give an example for future generations.  As Thomas McKibbens notes, “No one today would dispute the issue:  Fuller was wrong and Wayland was right.  What is significant in [these letters] is the truly extraordinary degree to which these two friends on opposing sides of an explosive issue could relate to each other”[2].

            By analyzing the debates of Fuller and Wayland, it will become evident that both men held a strong, authoritative view of Christian scripture.  Their letters also reveal a deep respect and admiration for one another, which must be regarded as a generous offering to modern Christian debate.  Only a few months after the publication of these letters, the Baptist Church would split over the issue of slavery, and the country would follow some twenty years after that.  Perhaps these letters might serve, not only as an example, but also as a warning to modern Christians who venture into the waters of public debate.    

The Letters

            A full examination of the sixteen letters published in the Christian Reflector reveals an articulate, multi-faceted, and multi-layered debate over the course of three months.  However, in an essay such as this, it seems sufficient to summarize this debate by focusing on the key issue of slavery’s intrinsic sinfulness.  This was the focal point of Fuller’s initial letter to the Reflector, and a point that Wayland combats throughout his correspondence with Fuller, and vice-verse.  The issue considers slavery from the point of Scripture, necessitates an employment of both Old and New Testament texts.

            According to Fuller, the institution of slavery cannot be, in and of itself, a moral sin, due to the failure of Scripture to condemn the practice.  Citing Leviticus 25:44-46a, Fuller illustrates that the institution of slavery is sanctioned by Scripture, “And ye shall take them as a inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever”[3].  Likewise, according to Fuller, the New Testament, at the very least tolerates the institution.  If therefore the Bible does sanction slavery, then the institution cannot, in and of itself, be considered a moral sin.  Certainly the Church must combat the abuses of slavery, but the institution itself cannot be rendered sinful.

            In response, Wayland acknowledges the existence of slavery in the Bible, but contends that God withheld “moral light” from humanity, in preference of a “gradual revelation” over time.[4]         Referencing polygamy, frequent capital punishments, and the tenure of real estate, also found in the book of Leviticus, Wayland argues that the “untractable disposition”[5] of the Hebrews in the wilderness permitted such practices, which have since been abolished.  There was no debate concerning these issues, and therefore Fuller’s premise could not hold.  Turning to the pages of the New Testament, Wayland argues that the existence of slavery in the first century was the product of social evil under the Roman Empire, not an institution ordained by God.[6]  In the Kingdom of God deliverance is preached to the captives, liberty is extended to the bruised, and the sympathy extended towards “the least of these” is extended to Christ Himself.[7]  Therefore, though slavery may have existed in the wilderness and been tolerated in the days of the New Testament, it is nonetheless a moral evil that must be opposed by Christian men and women.

            To this response, Fuller argues that God did not simply withhold moral light from the Hebrews regarding slavery, “but by both precept and example sanctioned it”[8].  In syllogistic form, Fuller contends that whatever God expressly sanctions cannot be sin, God expressly sanctioned slavery for the Hebrews, and therefore slavery cannot be, in and of itself, a sin.[9]  Turning to the New Testament, Fuller yields to the inclusion of masters in the early Church, the divine order of servants and masters, and the failure of Jesus to oppose slavery in His own context.  If Jesus did not oppose slavery in the Roman Empire, why would He oppose it in the American South? 

            Much more could be said about the arguments themselves, and both Fuller and Wayland would raise other points from scripture, with each of these arguments unfolding in similar fashion.  Wayland would respond to Fuller’s initial letter, and Fuller would respond to Wayland.  Both mean drew from Old and New Testament texts, and presented an example of reasonable, academic debate in their own time and place.  Like many Baptists of their day, both Fuller and Wayland represented the sentiments of their region, albeit from relatively tempered and modern standpoints.  The distinguishing dynamic of these debates was therefore not to be found in their content, but rather in their tone. 

            Wayland would introduce his initial letter with the salutation, “My Dear Brother”[10], in reference to the Reverend Richard Fuller.  Throughout his writings, Wayland would find points of resonance with his opponent, and refrained from offering personal attacks or defaming the character of his opponent.  The president of the illustrious Brown University was quick to compliment Fuller’s intelligence and reason, and humbly acknowledged the areas in which his own understanding was inferior to Fuller’s.  Likewise, Fuller would appeal to his brother, finding points of agreement and complimenting the efforts of his opponent. 

While neither minister was hesitant to voice opposition or question the conclusions of the other, these two colleagues seem to have genuinely entertained the arguments o both sides.  Through their letters to one another, both Fuller and Wayland illustrated a clear understanding of opposing viewpoints, and emphatically objected to the hostile and abusive rhetoric and action of many in their perspective regions.  At odds on an issue of the utmost importance, Fuller and Wayland held a respect for one another that makes their letters profoundly congenial, even in the midst of hostile regional conflict.

As previously mentioned, the letters of Fuller and Wayland would find their way into the pages of the Christian Reflector, a publication produced in Worcester, Massachusetts, and circulated throughout the state, as well as Vermont, New York, New Hampshire.  Perhaps neither man was aware at the time of composition that his letters would find such public display, but in the end both arguments would capture the attention of countless New Englanders.  In 1847, the letters would be compiled into a single volume, with an introduction offered by Francis Wayland at the request of Richard Fuller.  Despite the split of Northern and Southern Baptists in May of 1845, these ministers maintained a close friendship, and continued to value the perspective of the other, even with their church divided.  Wayland would lament the division, maintaining that the voice of his southern brethren needed to be heard, though never compromising his own position on the matter.  These men stood resolute, not only in terms of their position on slavery, but also in their friendship towards one another and their open approach to conversation and dialogue.

Conclusions

            By way of conclusion, the letters of Richard Fuller and Francis Wayland teach us a great deal on issues of biblical debate, particularly in the public arena.  Writing from opposing regional perspectives, it seems obvious that each man was influenced by dynamics other than scripture.  The rise of the abolitionist movement in the North would have impacted Wayland, and the vitality of the South’s peculiar institution would inform Fuller’s understanding.  At the time of their writings, these men would have had some influence on one another, despite the difficulty of overcoming regional divides.  On this point, it must be recognized that division, at the very least, severs such influence.

            These letters also reveal the propensity of scripture to find opposition, at times in the form of alternative or even identical scripture.  It therefore seems problematic to hold scripture as a single authority in the arena of debate, as the letters of Fuller and Wayland articulate different interpretations and implications of the same texts.  Reason, tradition, and overall themes of scripture may be employed, but it is certain, no single text will go unopposed.  Under the pressures of such opposition, it is reasonable to conclude that any scripture may be manipulated to favor alternative positions.

            Finally, the words of the prophet Isaiah seems to be the most appropriate antidote for the difficulties posed by biblical debate.  “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD”[11], is a profoundly important instruction for brothers and sisters of any faith.  When humanity fails to reason together, debate and dialogue yields to argumentation solely concerned with winning the day.  Such an approach fails to give consideration to the other, and runs the risk of hostile and violent rhetoric against one’s opponent, rather than a conversation with.

            Though the institution of slavery in the United States would be abolished, the issue would precipitate a civil war, and 750,000 Americans would pay for it with their lives.  On a national and political level, reason gave way to war and the country would suffer the bloodiest war in its history.  Perhaps this death toll could have been avoided if politicians and citizens were able to engage in conversation, rather than set out to destroy their opposition.  What’s certain is that if religious persons, united under religious convictions, cannot engage in debate and conversation from their own scriptures, as brothers and sisters, there is little hope for peace and unity in our world.

            Fuller and Wayland give an example of Christian brothers holding a conversation in the midst of a climate of hostility.  Their letters would be published for the world to see, and the measure of their influence was significant.  Regrettably, their influence was not enough to hold the Baptists or the nation together.  However, perhaps future generations can appreciate their endeavors, measure the costs of the alternative, and find a way to engage one another in a fashion conducive to mutual investment and cooperation towards the betterment of the human race.

Why Is Leviticus Relevant Week One: What Leviticus Says About God

Introduction

            I have in my hands a copy of Thomas Jefferson’s Bible.  As you know, Jefferson was one of our nations founding fathers, and many of the principles that guide our nation come from the Biblical texts.  However, Jefferson was not a Christian in the strictest sense, but rather a Deist, as were many of his contemporaries.  The Deists believed that there was a God, but that sometime after creating the world, He stepped back and let the people of the world take the reins themselves.  This is the “clockmaker” God, as many have described Him.  Like a clock, God creates the world and then lets it tick by its own design.

            With this theology, Jefferson set out to compose, or redact, his own version of scripture.  He liked Jesus, but as a Deist could not accept anything supernatural or miraculous.  According to Jefferson, there could be no bodily resurrection, no miracles or healings from supernatural powers.  So Jefferson simply started cutting things out.  He took his own razor blade, went through the New Testament, and created his own version of, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.  As you can see, Jefferson’s version is relatively slim.  

            Now I am a about to start a PhD in Southern History, so I have always been a big fan of Thomas Jefferson.  I love his approach to self-government, his attitudes towards the hard working yeomen farmers, and the diplomacy with which he guided our nation as president.  However, I am terribly and emphatically opposed to his Bible.  Who gave Jefferson such an authority?  Who is Thomas Jefferson to cut and paste from the Christian scriptures?  I, and I think I can speak for all of us, are terribly uncomfortable with Jefferson’s approach, with the authority that he assumes in creating the Jefferson Bible.

            However, I will confess this morning that, though completely unintentionally, I have often times chosen my own Bible as well.  I have fallen victim to the human tendency to create what is know as the “Canon within the Canon”.  What I mean by this is that I tend to spend most of my time in books like the Gospels, or Acts, or the Pauline Letters.  Occasionally I will venture into the waters of the Psalms or Proverbs, but rarely do I labor over Nahum or Obadiah.  They seem foreign, I don’t have a great familiarity with them, and I essentially neglect particular scriptures in favor of others.

            So this morning and over the next four weeks, I want to right that wrong.  I want for our class to immerse ourselves in what I believe is the most neglected book of the Bible, the book of Leviticus.  Now, I will admit, Leviticus is a difficult text.  There is a great deal of time spent discussing rituals and sacrifices, practices that are completely and totally foreign to twenty-first century Georgians.  But I believe that there is tremendous value contained in the twenty-seven chapters of this book.  Yes, it is kind of boring, but so is the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States.  In a way, I think these documents are intentionally boring.  They are not composed with the intension of entertaining or exciting the senses.  Leviticus was composed with the intension of dealing with the very serious manner of how the ancient Israelites were to conduct themselves in relationship with God.       

            There is a lot of language about priest and priesthoods.  Even the name, Leviticus, means Relating to the Levites”.  It is a book concerned with priests and priestly activities.  But that is perfect, because the second letter of Peter reminds us that we are “a royal priesthood”, and a, “holy nation”.  As Baptists, we believe in the priesthood of the believer, and we should take that priesthood very seriously.  So, though the book of Leviticus deals with priests, it also speaks to us.

            Finally, there is a reason we endeavor to study this text that I find fascinating.  Leviticus was the first book that Jesus would have studied as a young Jew.  In the synagogues, Jewish children were introduced to Leviticus before any other text, because it was believed that children could fully grasp the idea of holiness, and would therefore be better suited in their future lives if they established their foundation in a book concerning holiness.  Dr. Coates has been saying for weeks now that we are to be “students of Jesus”.  I agree, and as such I think it is appropriate that we put ourselves to the task of studying the book that Jesus began His education with.

            So, if you will allow me, I would like to dedicate the next four Sundays to the study of the book of Leviticus.  It is a large book, containing twenty-seven chapters, and far to large to go through verse by verse in the thirty minutes that we have together.  Rather, I would encourage you to read as much of Leviticus as you can, and in this time I will highlight four of the major themes that are present in the book.  These include, “What Leviticus Says About God” (the idea of God dwelling with God’s people), “What Leviticus Says About Humanity” (looking at the concept of “holiness”), “How Leviticus Sees the Relationship Between God and Humanity” (looking at the practices of sacrifice and purification), and finally, “How Leviticus Relates to the Christian Church” (finding Jesus in Leviticus). 

            That is a brief road map of where I would like to go, and I will provide some material and suggested readings beforehand, which should help as us we try to navigate this “strange” text.  Leviticus is a tall order, but one that I think is important.  I also think it will be tremendously rewarding, and my hope is that, in four weeks, we will be able to answer the question “Why Is Leviticus Relevant”.  So this morning, let us begin our study of the book of Leviticus with the subject of “What Leviticus Says About God”.

God Has Moved In!

            The story of Leviticus actually begins in the book of Exodus.  After God has liberated His people from captivity in Egypt, He leads them out into the wilderness where they will dwell for a generation.  In chapter twenty-five of Exodus, instructions are given concerning the construction of the Tabernacle, or the dwelling place of God.  The Ark of the Covenant is described, and in the closing verses of the book, God moves in.  The Israelites have buildt the tabernacle, they have consecrated the vestments, and God has chosen, once again, to dwell in the midst of His people.

            In the Jewish faith, the Tabernacle is extremely important.  Later, the Israelites will build the Temple, and that will hold the same importance, but for now they are nomads.  As nomads, the Israelites need a house of worship that they can erect in this time of waiting in the desert.  So, the Tabernacle is erected, and that is where God lives.  Sure, the Tabernacle is a place of worship, it is a place to offer sacrifices, but most importantly, it is God’s house.  In a very literal sense, God Himself lived in the Tabernacle.  Consequently, this building is of extreme importance. 

Instructions From God

            So it is, with such an important location, the Israelites are to take great caution in how they approach and conduct themselves within the Tabernacle.  That is what the sacrifices are all about.  The first seven chapters of Leviticus are dedicated to sacrifices for this very reason.  There are a variety of sacrifices described; instructions give to the priests, to the rulers, and to the common people.  Not only are the individuals to be clean and holy, but also so is the structure itself.  With the exercise of great caution the Israelites endeavor to honor God’s Tabernacle.

            Now, in the coming weeks we will look at what these sacrifices entail and how they relate, but suffice it to say for now that these sacrifices are a way of attaining holiness.  Throughout the book of Leviticus we hear the refrain “For I am the Lord your God; sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44).  What that means is, God is holy, He requires holiness, and therefore we must become holy if we are to come before Him.  When you read the list of sacrifices and rituals, this seems an impossible task and perhaps it was, but God is making an effort.  God wishes to dwell with His people, in their very midst, and the rituals and sacrifices are the way He is going to make it possible for that to happen.

God Is Present

            On the ground, this takes two special forms.  The sacrificial instructions say that the Israelites are to bring their sacrifices, “to the LORD” (Leviticus 1:13), implying that God is present in worship.  We are told that the odors of the sacrifices are, “pleasing to the LORD” (Leviticus 1:9), implying that what the Israelites were offering mattered.  In this church, we have begun the “Give Two” campaign, in which our members are to give two dollars every Sunday.  This will assist the church financially, it will help cultivate and maintain good habits, but most importantly, it teaches us and the children of this church that what we bring before God matters.  I was speaking with Christ Burns about the campaign, and he told me a story about how, as a child, his father would always give him a quarter to place in the offering plate.  He told me of how this made him feel like he was a part of the worship service, and that he was giving something to God.  In Leviticus, we read that sacrifices are made to God, and that these sacrifices are pleasing to God.  What is offered to God matters because God is present in the midst of the Israelites’ worship.

            However, God is not limited to one place, and instructions are given throughout the book of Leviticus concerning the camp, the people, and the community that has been established.  How the Israelites live is important, because God is with them in their lives.  “I am the LORD your God” (Leviticus 11:44), we hear throughout the book of Leviticus.  “Make yourselves holy, because I, the LORD your God, am holy.”  God is concerned with the holiness of the Israelites because He is present with them, both in the Tabernacle and in their everyday lives.         

New Creation

            So what does all of this have to do with God?  We know that God is holy, and we know that God wants us to be holy, but I think there is something more to be gleaned from these verses.  Do you remember the Garden of Eden?  Before the fall I mean, when Adam and Eve were walking around in the garden, living side by side with God.  That was the whole purpose right, for God to dwell with humanity?  But something went wrong, humanity sinned, and the relationship was severed.  And throughout the Bible we read of the consequences of this initial sin.  But we also see a theme developing.  God doesn’t give up on His people.  God makes every effort, time and time again, to dwell in the midst of His children.  We see it in the garden, we see it in the Incarnation, and we look forward to it in the New Jerusalem.  Leviticus is one of those attempts.  God isn’t giving the Israelites a set of rules or laws to govern themselves, as if He were a clockmaker.  No, God wants to be a part of the Israelites lives, to dwell in their midst, and to remind them that He has created them to be in relationship with their God.  This book is about a new creation, a nation and a people drawn out of Egypt to live with their God.  But, true to form, humanity doesn’t get it.

            I want to turn to chapter 10, and read the first three verses to you.  God has given His instruction, the Tabernacle and the people have been prepared, and Aaron gets up and celebrates the first worship serve in God’s house.  And then we read,

Now Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his censer, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered unholy fire before the Lord, such as he had not commanded them.  And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.  Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord meant when he said, ‘Through those who are near me I will show myself holy, and before all the people
I will be glorified’” (Leviticus 10:1-3).

After all of that work, after all that instruction, Aaron’s sons bring forth an unholy sacrifice.  They have been instructed and told time and time again that this is a serious matter.  This is a precise matter, and Aaron’s sons choose to go their own way.  Like Adam and Eve, Aaron’s sons thought their way would be superior to the way that God had told them.  Sadly, this is a story that we can all relate with.    

Conclusion

            At this point, I think I would have given up.  God has brought the people out of Egypt, He has brought them into the wilderness and protected them all the way.  All He wants to do is dwell in their midst, and He has given them detailed instructions as to how to make it possible.  And they messed it up, they ignored God’s instructions and forced God’s hand.  If it were me, I think I would have had enough.  But I’m not God, and God is not so quick to throw in the towel.

            The story of Leviticus doesn’t end with chapter ten, and the story of the Israelites doesn’t end with the book of Leviticus.  For centuries to come God will make every effort to dwell with His people, even to the point of taking on human form.  Time and time again humanity will get it wrong, and time and time again God will respond with more grace, and more mercy, and yet another attempt to reconcile and dwell with His people.  If the book of Leviticus tells us one thing about God, it is that God wants desperately to live amongst His people.  We fall short, but He never does. 

These rules and regulations are not polite suggestions for how to live civilly in a new land, they are instruction for how to create a context of holiness in which God Himself might dwell.  We read this text, we look at what it tells us about God, and we are reminded that we fall well short of the mark.  But we are also reminded that God is constantly working in our lives, looking past the inadequacies of humanity, and sharing His love and grace in an effort to be a part of His people.  Like the Israelites, we are God’s people, and the same God who reached out to His people in Leviticus reaches out to His people in Gainesville.  We read texts like this, and we are encouraged that we worship and serve a God who wants to be a part of our lives, and as much as we desire to know God more, He desires for us to do so. 

The Teachings of Israel Baal Shem Tov

By definition, Hasidic Judaism offers a uniquely Jewish approach to “mystical experience, the direct encounter with the divine” (Melton and Baumann 583).  While the roots of Hassidism can be traced back to much older mystical texts, modern Hassidism is generally considered to have began with the teachings of Israel Baal Shem Tov, an eighteenth century Polish rebbe.  Baal Shem Tov spent a great deal of time studying both the Jewish Bible and the Kabbalah, a mystical text from the thirteenth-century, and was believed to have had interaction with the prophet Ahiya of Dhilo.  Ahiya was a prophet during the reign of King David.  Baal Shem Tov applied a new emphasis to Judaism, replacing the legal teaching of the law with piety and devotion towards God.  In a nutshell, Baal Shem Tov intended to “free the Jews from the shackles of excessive intellectualism, introduce more poetry, more sentiment into the Jewish worship, take away the Jewish youth from useless, pilpulistic casuistry, and inspire him with a desire to pray, to cultivate his religious emotions”(Greenstone 237-238).  Still, it is easy to fathom that after centuries of practice and the near extinction of the sect during the Holocaust of World War II, that Hassidic Judaism would look much different in the twenty-first-century than the Judaism of Baal Shem Tov, however, with a basis on study and spirituality it is apparent that the philosophy of Hassidism has been able to survive the centuries and strongly resembles the teachings of its original founder.  The Hasidic emphasis on community, the recognition of its leaders, and most importantly the relationship between the individual, the Torah, and the Creator, are major themes that dominate Hasidism today while finding their origin in the teachings of Israel Baal Shem Tov.

            According to Baal Shem Tov the “nature of life is given by the wholly personal mode of faith, and nevertheless this faith acts in such a way as to form a community” (Buber 2).  The significance of this community is that while it fosters religious devotion, it does not create a sect that is completely blocked off to the rest of the world.  Simply put, the teachings of Baal Shem Tov do not promote a hermitic approach to religion.  Hasidic Jews are to maintain their role in society from their rank and profession to their duties as husbands, wives, brothers, and sisters.  How do these teachings manifest in modern Hasidic communities?  Take for example the Hasidic approach to linguistics.  While it is common for Hasidic Jews to teach their children Yiddish, their religious language, they primarily speak the language of the country in which they live.  This example shows a realistic approach to everyday life while still maintaining the religious identity of the sect.  The community distinguishes itself in other ways including their unique dress and daily immersion into prayer and study.  Still, the Hasidic idea is that the “esoteric teachings of the Kabbalah can be made understandable to everyone.  This understanding is meant to help refine a person, as well as adding depth and vigor to one’s ritual observation” (Hasidic Judaism 8).  By insisting on one-ness with God the Hasidic movement creates a community of devotion while maintaining a realistic outlook on one’s role in modern society, drastically similar to the earliest teachings on the Hasidic community.

            Contrary to Orthodox Jewry, Hasidic leaders are recognized for their “intimacy with the divine and from a lifestyle that testifies to it” (Sherwin 102).  According to the sect, communion with God is more important than Torah study and that the later is simply a means of achieving the former.  Using Deuteronomy 10:20 as a basis, Baal Shem Tov insisted that “cleaving to God” was the primary concern of Judaism.  It is likely that Baal Shem Tov himself never received a rabbinical title or any type of formal rabbinical training.  His connection with the divine however made him the early leader of the sect and his example has been followed since.  While this has created strife between the Hasidic sect and the contemporary rabbinical establishment, it is an approach that was instituted by the earliest Hasidic Jews and has been upheld ever since.  It is key to their spiritual growth as the role of the rebbe is to “bring his followers closer to God” (Sherwin 102) rather than simply instruct them according to the Torah.

            Finally, as previously mentioned the whole aim of Hasidism is to establish a greater connection with the divine through prayer and worship.  Known as “an ecstatic healer who worked miracles using magic, amulets, and spells”(Esposito, Fasching, and Lewis 101), Baal Shem Tov was understood to have a special relationship with the divine.  The means of obtaining this relationship differed from that of mainstream Judaism in that study of the Torah was secondary to piety or righteous living.  As leaders emerged from mastering this concept, it is the goal of every Hasidic Jew to do the same.  Additionally, Baal Shem Tov taught that God manifests Himself through his creation and therefore humanity has the ability to establish a direct connection with the Creator.  Prayer, righteous living, festivals, and many other practices are simply a result of burning desire and enthusiasm to know God and serve him accordingly.  This theme, introduced by Baal Shem Tov, was and is the underlining theme that sets Hasidism apart from mainstream Judaism.  The survival of this teaching is essential to Hasidism and without it the sect would have either faded into mainstream Judaism, or simply died out all together.

            The heightened emphasis on spirituality that dominates Hasidic Judaism traces directly back to its founder.  It would be reasonable to assume that a group that branched off of mainstream Judaism would quickly return to its roots or even die off but the strong teachings of Israel Baal Shem Tov proved to stand the test of time.  His teachings, essential to the Hasidism were so dominant that with any significant modification the sect would have surely died off.  Furthermore, the enthusiastic approach proved to be appealing enough to create a significant following that has lasted for hundreds of years.  Rabbi Eliezrie, a chief spokesman for the Hasids explains that during prayer, “…a person reaches a certain level of spiritual ecstasy and opens himself up spiritually.  He has thought about godliness; he has thought about spirituality; he has thought about the things God accomplished in the world…”(Eliezrie 3).  This summarizes the basic principles of both Baal Shem Tov and the current teachers and followers of Hasidism.  The sect has not abandoned Judaism, but simply created another and possibly better way of reaching their God.  Through devotion and piety Baal Shem Tov developed a direct understanding of the divine and some three hundred years later his followers are continuing to do just that.

Bibliography

Buber, Martin. Hasidism. New York: Philosophical Library, 1948.

Cohn-Sherbok, Dan.  The Jewish Faith.  Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1993.  91-2.

Cohon, Beryl D.  Judaism in Theory and Practice.  New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1958.  69.

Dauber, Jeremy. Looking Again: Representation in Nineteenth-Century Yiddish Literature. New York: Indiana University Press, 2005. 276-318. Department of Germanic Languages Columbia University. Atla Religion Database. EBSCOhost. Harwell Goodwin Davis Library, Samford University. 15 Apr. 2009 <https://ezproxy.samford.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001576774&site=ehost-live>.

Eliezrie, David.  “Hasidic Judaism.”  Spiritual World.  200.  15 April 2009<http://www.spirituaworld.org/hasidic/print.html>.

Esposito, John L., Darrel J. Fasching, and Todd Lewis. World Religions Today. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 100-02.

Greenstone, Julius H. The Messiah Idea in Jewish History. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1972. 227-38.

Melton, Gordon, and Martin Baumann, eds. Religions of the World. Vol. 2. Oxford: ABC-CLIO, 2002. 4 vols. 583-84.

Robinson, Ira. Literary Forgery and Hasidic Judaism: The Case of Rabbi Yudel Rosenburg. New York: American Jewish Congress, 1991. 61-78. Attla Religion Database. EBSCOhost. Harwell Goodwin Davis Library, Samford University. 16 Apr. 2009 <https://ezproxy.samford.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0000835207&site=ehost-live>.

Sherwin, Byron L. Workers of Wonders. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. 93-115.

“Hasidic Judaism.”  Absolute Astronomy.  2009.  16 April

<2009http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Hasidic_Judaism>.

The Moses Whigs of Knoxville, Tennessee

When the Moses brothers made their way from Exeter, New Hampshire, to Whig-party stronghold, Knoxville, Tennessee, in the mid 1800’s, they quickly became a dominant force in the city's political life.  Their migration was motivated by business opportunity, but they would soon find themselves at the forefront of local politics, as publishers of one of the region’s most influential newspapers, The Knoxville Register.  Though the Moses brothers would retire from their posts in 1849, by that time they had solidified themselves as powerful political figures in Knoxville.  Under their leadership, the paper would flourish, and with their departure the paper suffered a ten-year decline.[1] 

            The first Moses to arrive in Knoxville was James C., a recruit of Knoxville banker and merchant Perez Dickenson.  When local paper, The Knoxville Times, began to decline in popularity, Dickenson made the move eastward in an effort to recruit the practical printer from Exeter[2].  James had been working in Boston as a foreman for the Boston Mercantile Journal[3].  Impressed by the young Moses, Dickenson made the trip to Boston, convinced James to take his talents southward, and soon thereafter James C. Moses arrived in Knoxville.[4]

            Some three years later in 1841, James was joined by his brother John, to assist in editing and writing for Moses and Company.  At the end of 1839, James had purchased, The Knoxville Times, as well as another local paper, The Knoxville Register.  The papers had merged under the title, The Knoxville Register and Weekly Times, and together with Thomas Hume, James Moses had been publishing the newly formed joint-paper since December 25 of 1839.  During that time, John had been completing his studies at Waterville College in Maine, having previously studied classics at Exeter Academy (now Phillips Exeter Academy).  In 1841, at the age of 19, John replaced Hume and the Moses brothers began publishing their paper under the family name. 

            The Whig party had held prominence in Knoxville since the party’s inception in 1833.  Rivalries with Andrew Jackson in Nashville with Knoxvillians including Hugh Lawson White, John Sevier, and others had resulted in a strong anti-Jacksonian sentiment.  In addition, Knoxville was an emerging metropolitan hub, and Whig initiatives for transportation funding resonated with the growing railroad system in the city.  By the end of Jackson’s second term in 1836, the Whig party had immerged on the national scale, and efforts were put in place to defeat William Van Buren, the Democratic nominee for president.[5]

            In 1836 the Whigs unveiled an innovative strategy to win the White House.  Rather than nominating a single representative to combat van Buren, the Whigs nominated three candidates, Daniel Webster, Hugh Lawson White, and William Henry Harrison.  The hope was that each candidate could win regionally, preventing Van Buren from winning a majority and thus allowing the Whig-controlled House of Representatives to elect the next president.  In Tennessee, White was given the nomination and would carry the state.  Ultimately the plan would fail however, as Van Buren would carry fifty-eight percent of the Electoral College.[6] 

            Having been defeated in their inaugural efforts, the Whig party altered their approach, and nominated a single candidate, William Henry Harrison, in 1840.  The Register would prove a strong proponent of Harrison’s nomination, as pro-Harrison columns flooded the pages of the paper.  Additionally, The Register would give great attention to the national campaign, providing periodic updates on Whig success in other states.  Ultimately Harrison would win the day, carrying a majority of electoral and popular votes including Tennessee and five other slave states.  Ironically, New Hampshire would be the only New England state to vote against Harrison, preferring the incumbent Martin Van Buren.

            Harrison’s presidency would be short lived however.  In an effort to illustrate the knowledge and stoicism of a heroic war general, and possibly to prove wrong the Democrats who had labeled him “Granny Harrison” during the campaign, Harrison delivered the longest inaugural address in United States history on a chilly and wet March morning.[7]  Sadly, this show of bravado would result in Harrison developing pneumonia, a condition that took his life on April 4, 1841.  This sad news would be reported in, The Register, and the country would find itself in crisis.          

            At the time, there were no constitutional instructions regarding the replacement of a president in the case of death.  The panic would be brief however, and Harrison’s vice president, John Tyler, would assume the office of presidency.  Tyler was a Whig by title, but not in political mindset.  He would oppose the Whig platform, veto Henry Clay’s national banking legislation, and earn the disdain of his own party.  His cabinet would resign, and Tyler would not be awarded the party’s nomination in 1844.[8]

            Having gained the Presidency for the first time in party history, only to have their nominee die shortly after his inauguration and be replaced with a representative at odds with the party’s platform, the Whigs found themselves in a precarious situation in the campaign for 1844.  Several candidates would be entertained, but ultimately the party, and The Register, would endorse the nomination of Henry Clay of Kentucky.  Clay had run for the office before, and was known for his ability to compromise politically for the national good.  His influence on the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 had gained Clay a great deal of credibility, including the admiration of Abraham Lincoln.

            It was not surprising that The Register would enthusiastically throw the paper’s support behind Clay and his presidential campaign.  Ads, editorials, and updates from around the country flooded the pages of the paper in the years leading up to the 1844 election.  Harrison’s opponent would be James K. Pole, a Kentuckian running as the Democrat nominee.  In Knoxville, Arthur R. Crozier’s, The Knoxville Standard, would endorse Polk, and the rival papers would work tirelessly to win the East Tennessee vote for their perspective nominees.

            In the November 13, 1844 edition of The Register, results from tallied states, including Tennessee would be recorded, with the final result held for the following week’s edition.  Kentucky received the applause of The Register, having voted against the state’s own son.  Likewise, “North Carolina O.K!” and “The Buckeye State!” were editorials applauding the results in North Carolina and Ohio.  As for Tennessee, Clay carried the majority, including a 207-72 win in the city of Knoxville.  According to the paper, the voters in New York would decide the election, and the issue could be considered one of reserved optimism.[9]

            One week later, when the final results were in and Polk was elected, The Register reported that New York had fallen and so the Democrats and so the Union.  In the end, Polk would carry only forty-nine percent of the popular vote, but win the Electoral College handily.  However, the election would reveal the tremendous versatility and appeal of the Whig Party.  Not confined to a particular region, Whigs were able to obtain votes from the Mountain South, New England, and Coastal Maryland.  Although the Whigs had failed to secure the office of the Presidency, their appeal was national, an important attribute during the tumultuous mid-nineteenth century.

            This national appeal would be recognized again in the election of 1848, with Zachary Taylor defeating Lewis Cass in the election of that year.  Like his Whig predecessor, Taylor would die in office, passing the torch to his vice president, Millard Fillmore.  Once again, the unelected Whig candidate would lose his base, denouncing many Whig priorities and subsequently losing their support and the nomination of 1852.  Fillmore would be the last Whig to rise to the Presidency, and the party would soon split amidst the rise of Republicanism in the North and ultimately dissolve in 1860.[10]  

             Having experience a brief golden age, only to dissolve some twenty-seven years after its inception, the Whig Party would be a brief but significant political party that had national appeal.  In Knoxville, The Register would serve as evidence of this national appeal and the ability of the party to compromise on major issues.  The Moses brothers, New Englanders, were able to influence and thrive within the Mountain South, and brought to light the political ethos of the region.  Compromise and moderation defined the region, and the Moses brothers served as proud spokesmen of the moderate people of Knoxville and East Tennessee.

            However, all within the Whig camp did not welcome this moderate position.  William Brownlow, infamous known as “Fighting Parson Brownlow” was not so apt to compromise.  Attacking not only Democrats, but Baptists, Catholics, and a score of others, Brownlow held his positions with zeal and fervor, but quickly found himself attacking many within the city.  His paper, Brownlow’s Tennessee Whig, possessed a similar tone, lambasting Democrats and those who would support them, and in some cases, even opposing Whig candidates.  Brownlow’s personal motto, “Independent in all thing, neutral in nothing”, resonated with the “Cry aloud and spare not” policy of his paper.[11] 

            Though there is no record of conflict between the Moses brothers and Brownlow prior to the Civil War, their papers certainly stood at odds.  Though representing the same party, and relatively similar political positions, the Moses brothers’ publication took a moderate Whig stance whereas Brownlow could be characterized as anything but moderate.  The Tennessee Whig would be an East Tennessee favorite, but those looking for a more sober and moderate position would turn to The Register.  While the political efforts of these papers would share commonality during the golden age of the Whig Party, the tone and ethos with which they were published were strikingly different.

            Whig politics in Knoxville were a top priority, but their successes would be short lived.  After Fillmore, the Whigs would fail to see another party member in the White House, and the party would not make it past the election of 1860.  With the Moses brothers retiring from the publication industry in 1849, the newspaper rivalry between their paper and Brownlow’s would no longer involve them, but the ten-year period in which they published The Register does reveal a great deal about the brothers’ approach.      

            The Whig movement was an important one to the region, and had national implications as well.  Representing a political movement of national importance, Knoxvillians could take several approaches.  In the case of The Knoxville Standard, that approach would be opposition.  In Brownlow’s case, the approach would be hostile and divisive.  Yet in the case of the Moses brothers, the approach would be moderate, compromising, and congenial.  In many ways, the Moses brothers epitomized the compromising efforts of the party, which won it national appeal.  Furthermore, their less-hostile tone set well within a region that preferred compromise on the major issues of the day.  Though the Whig party would not play a major role in the election of 1860, or be a political player in the secession arguments of the 1860’s, The Knoxville Register would represent an approach that would be favored in the years of civil war, and the Moses brothers would illustrate a middle ground approach that strongly characterized the people of East Tennessee during the 1860’s.

---

Yahweh's Story

Text:  Exodus 1:8-2:10 (NRSV

Whose Story Is This?

            This morning’s text ends with the story of the miraculous survival of the infant Moses.  It is a story of hope, as one of Israel’s own has triumphed over the ruler of Egypt and found himself in the graces of the might Egyptian Empire.  As you know, Moses will go on to become a prince in Egypt, a mighty ruler who leads his own people out of Pharaoh’s enslavement, through the Red Sea, and into the wilderness.  Ultimately Moses will hand down the Law to the Israelites, and be remembered as one of the greatest leaders in the entire Bible.  From the beginning, here in Exodus 2, we know that Moses is special.

            But I don’t think that Moses should be the focus of this morning’s sermon.  After all, this is really a story about Pharaoh.  Of course, Pharaoh’s story is quite different.  It is one that begins with the fear of the uncontrollable rise of the Hebrew people.  This fear will turn into action, as Pharaoh’s insecurities are manifested in the attempted slaughter of the Hebrew males, and time and time again Pharaoh will attempt to wipe out an entire generation of people.  Pharaoh’s story, much unlike that of Moses, is one of fear, and violence, and attempted genocide.  This isn’t a very happy story at all.  Fortunately, I don’t think Pharaoh’s story is the focal point either.

            Perhaps the women then?  We have the Egyptian midwives who heroically refuse to obey Pharaoh’s command to kill the newborn Hebrew men.  They take a great risk in opposing the powerful Pharaoh, and their cunning response illustrates their acute sensibilities.  And of course, how could we forget Mariam?  Mariam, the mother of Moses, loves her son so much that she hides him for three months, and then sends him sailing down the river in a papyrus basket, all in an effort to save his life from Pharaoh’s decree.  We see Moses’ sister keeping watch, closely monitoring the voyage of her infant brother.  And then there is Pharaoh’s own daughter, who rescues Moses and, moved with compassion, takes the infant as her own.  Time after time this text draws out the heroic, astute, and compassionate action of women caught in the middle of Pharaoh’s war on the Hebrew children.

             But I don’t think these stories should be our focus this morning either.  So if this text isn’t primarily about Moses, and it isn’t primarily about Pharaoh, and if it isn’t primarily about the women, then who is it about exactly?  Well, despite only being mentioned three times in some twenty-five verses, this whole story is about Yahweh, the God of Israel and the God of our Lord Jesus.  This is His story, or rather the beginning of His story with His children, the Israelites. 

Tell the Story

            Like any good story, Yahweh’s story has all the necessary ingredients.  There is a rival, Pharaoh, the god-king of Egypt.  These is a movement from oppression to freedom and the ultimate triumph of good over evil, and there is a very strong supporting cast.  So let’s look deeper into the story. 

            We find ourselves in Egypt, some forty-five hundred years ago, and things are starting to change.  Joseph, the great viceroy of Egypt who saved the people from famine, is dead and gone.  But his descendants are still hanging around, and this is a problem for Pharaoh.  A strange, foreign people, are multiplying like crazy and soon things will be out of control!  So, as people often do, Pharaoh reacts, and his reaction is violent and oppressive. 

First the Israelites are enslaved, forced to undergo manual labor, but this doesn’t work.  They keep increasing!  So, Pharaoh takes things to the next level.  If the Hebrews won’t stop reproducing, Pharaoh will just have the midwives kill them.  But that doesn’t work either.  Finally, Pharaoh makes a decree that all the newborn Hebrew males should be thrown into the Nile and drowned.  Sadly, the text doesn’t deny the effectiveness of this plan.  We have no way of knowing exactly, but the implication is that Moses’ story is remarkable, and that his fate is far different from that of his contemporaries.  So far, this isn’t a very uplifting story.

As we continue through the passage, we do hear that Moses was saved, that his mother and sister acted against Pharaoh’s decree, and that Pharaoh’s own daughter ultimately saves the child.  That’s kind of uplifting, I guess.  I mean, sure we have an entire generation of Hebrew children apparently terminated, but at least Moses made it! 

Now we all know that the survival of one in the midst of mass genocide does not make a good story.  And if the story ended there, I think it would be safe to say that Yahweh’s story was just that, not very good.  But we all know what comes next.  There are the plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the journey in the wilderness, and finally the Hebrew people arrive in the Promised Land.  Yahweh hears the cries of the oppressed, appoints a leader, conquers His rival Pharaoh, and even has a theme song to go with it.  Now I will spare you the theme song, but I place the “Song of the Sea” right up there with “Highway To the Danger Zone” and “Eye of the Tiger”.  When the smoke has settled, Yahweh’s story has a happy ending, filled with heroes, miracles, and the awesome power of the Supreme Deity of the Universe. 

Our Story

But we aren’t there yet.  We aren’t there in the story of Yahweh and the Exodus, nor are we there in our own personal journeys to the Promised Land.  Before we get there, we have to deal with Pharaoh, and Pharaoh will employ every possible offensive against Yahweh’s people.  In this morning’s text, we see Pharaoh’s offensive manifest itself in the enslavement of and the attempted eradication of the Hebrew people.  In our own lives, we may encounter sickness, death, violence, oppression, and any obstacle that can be thrown our way.  But remember whose story this is.  In Yahweh’s story, good will prevail over evil, and we get to be a part of it.

When the Egyptian midwives refused to obey the Pharaoh’s command, in an act of civil disobedience, they chose to fear God over Pharaoh and were blessed.  When Mariam refused to give up, and put herself at great risk for that which is noble and best, she was blessed.  When Pharaoh’s daughter, moved with compassion, decided to adopt one of the same Hebrew boys her father was trying to kill, she was blessed.  When we, likewise, stand with those who are oppressed, refuse to give in to the evils of the world, and show mercy and compassion to a world in need, we shall be blessed. 

And the greatest blessing of all, I think, is the opportunity to be a part of God’s story.  We have talked this morning about how this story ends.  We know God is going to have the final word, both in this story from Exodus, and in the story of our own lives.  So this morning, in the midst of whatever trials or circumstances you might be against, whatever foes you may be battling in your own life, know that God is with you.  Know that you are a part of God’s story, and know that in God’s story, the good guy always wins.