The pick that launched a thousand links

The Democratic Party and their public-relations arm, the MSM, are trying to spin John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin as a panic move; supposedly, in his panic, he rushed the pick without vetting her properly. Unfortunately for them, one of their own has already debunked that storyline. The Washington Post article chronicling the process that produced Sen. McCain’s decision makes it very clear that his vetting process was very thorough indeed. Along the way, it also makes it clear that he was interested in Palin not primarily because of her gender but because he saw her as a kindred spirit. (This fact worries David Brooks, who concludes from it that she too must not “have an explicit governing philosophy,” and that “she shares McCain’s primary weakness—that she has a tendency to substitute a moral philosophy for a political philosophy.” This makes him the first person to object to the Palin pick on the grounds that she isn’t conservative enough.) The McCain team knew all the issues with Gov. Palin, and judged them insufficient reason not to pick her.Should they have handled the issue of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy differently? John Hinderaker of PowerLine thinks so, arguing that “The time to bring it up was when Palin and her family were first introduced. Bristol was there, and it wouldn’t have been difficult to refer to her fiance, say that she is getting married in October or whatever, and that she will have a baby next winter. Sarah Palin could have added that this wasn’t how she and her husband planned it, but they like their new son-in-law and are totally supportive of their daughter.” OK, true, that would have defused the issue—but wouldn’t it also have defused the Dayton rally? Would that really have been the first impression they wanted to leave? Jennifer Rubin considers the possibility that, though the vicious rumors in the blogosphere changed the tone of the announcement, the timing might have been exactly what the McCain campaign planned all along:

Perhaps Palin was vetted, the problematic issues considered, and the problematic story rolled out on a holiday during a hurricane. That would be the model of competence—the last option, apparently, the MSM would consider as the logical explanation for the events of the last week.

Certainly, as Andrew Malcolm notes, the way the McCain campaign, in the person of campaign manager Steve Schmidt, handled the release of the information had all the appearance of a well-planned move:

It was a classic, illustrative and instructive case of political damage control. Weeks ago one of the first things out of Palin’s mouth when she met with the McCain campaign’s vice presidential vetter was word of her daughter’s condition and her husband’s DUI arrest in the 1980s. Schmidt has known since then that if his boss picked the Alaska governor as the running mate, it had better be the McCain campaign that got the bad news out. And got it out its own way at its own time.

There’s no denying that Labor Day and Gustav between them seem to have blunted the story, but much to the frustration of the MSM, so has the reaction of conservatives. Their problem is that they have no idea what Christian conservatives are actually like, only their own stereotypes of us, and so they expected the stereotype; what they got instead was the reality. Dr. James Dobson is all too often his own worst enemy in his public pronouncements, but his statement in this instance was a perfect example of Christian grace.As a result, the Left has taken its best shot, and most people seem to be looking at this as reason to empathize with the Palins rather than to condemn them; in consequence, Gov. Palin is still very much alive as a political force. A lot will ride on her acceptance speech tomorrow night, but that would be true anyway, and all the attention may only have served to attract even more people to watch. That ups the stakes, but there’s no reason to expect anything from Gov. Palin other than a strong performance. She speaks with both an attractive charm and a sense of serious purpose; she’s clearly a strong, capable woman who just gets the job done, and it comes through in her delivery. All she needs to do tomorrow night is the same thing she always does, and all will be well.Of course, it isn’t in their best interest to allow things to go that smoothly, and so they’re trying to find other charges against Gov. Palin that might actually stick. They’ve tried accusing her of being a past supporter of Pat Buchanan (aided by the fact, as one would expect, that he’s more than happy to claim her); unfortunately for him, his sister Bay doesn’t support his contention, and neither do the records. The charge has also been made that Gov. Palin was at one time a member of the Alaska Independence Party; the McCain campaign has refuted that as well. The media have tried to take a snippet of an interview she did with Larry Kudlow, in which she was dodging VP speculation, and make her look clueless; the charge is unreasonable. Barack Obama is insisting he wants to counter Gov. Palin on the issues, but some of his supporters are unwilling to take that risk, so they’re scrambling around to find some way, any way, to neutralize her by other means—even drawing on arguments they would normally condemn as sexist and demeaning to women—and at this point, it doesn’t seem likely that they’ll give up just because their tactics aren’t working.Unfortunately for them, that might not be a wise approach. The Obama campaign, including the senator himself, and several of his high-profile supporters have already opened themselves up to a charge of sexism from the McCain campaign (delivered, appropriately, by Carly Fiorina) for belittling Gov. Palin’s experience; they’ve also opened themselves up to comparisons between Gov. Palin and Sen. Obama, in which one can make a pretty good argument that Sen. Obama has even less meaningful experience than the woman whose experience he’s belittling (especially when you include all her experience, which he seems resistant to doing). Further, while it was a gracious and truly good thing for Sen. Obama to condemn those who were spreading lies about the Palin family, their dirty, hateful acts (along with the acts of violence committed against people traveling to the Republican convention) have nevertheless tarnished the image of the Obama campaign. (With friends like those, who needs enemies?) They’ve also reminded a lot of folks about Sen. Obama’s “punished with a baby” comment. As a consequence, if they move against Gov. Palin too aggressively, it’s likely to backfire.The problem for them is, there really are a lot of women out there who see themselves in Gov. Palin, who like her, and who don’t like what they’re seeing in response to her from the Left. As John Mark Reynolds writes,

[Palin] is a Renaissance woman, but for some bigots if that breadth of experience was not gained in paid employment or only in government than it counts less or does not count at all. That is offensive, though hard-working women like Palin mostly ignore it and cheerfully go on being awesomely competent.My wife is one of those millions of women and she sees in many sneers about Palin (reducing this brilliant woman to the “beauty queen”) yet another example of some peoples inability to value her experience. The Democratic Party should be warned that they are playing with electoral fire if they act as if all of Palin’s life experience is not of value. My wife will not get mad, but she is getting active.

The reactions of the McCain campaign have only reinforced this; when a reporter asked how Gov. Palin could serve as VP with “a new baby herself, and now she’s about to be a new grandmother trying to support a daughter giving birth to her own child,” Steve Schmidt shot back, “Frankly, I can’t imagine that question being asked of a man. A lot of women will find it offensive.” Clearly, they have no intention of letting the media or the Democratic Party treat her any differently than those folks would allow Republicans to treat a Democratic female candidate (and good for them, I say).Taken all in all, Janice Shaw Crouse concludes, the addition of Gov. Palin to the GOP ticket has “changed the 2008 election parameters,” flattening Sen. Obama’s expected convention bounce and generating a lot of money for the McCain/Palin ticket in the process. This gives Sen. McCain an opportunity, if he will take advantage of it with his speech on Thursday; when most expected his campaign to be dead by this point, if he’s able to generate a bounce, he could come out of the convention ahead—and from there it’s a mighty short sprint to the finish line.

News from the rest of the world

The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg dryly remarked yesterday, “I know this isn’t as important as Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, but . . . Anbar province is now under the control of the Iraqi Army.”Thanks for the catch; this is great news, and a profoundly important development, though of course the Washington Post can be counted on to put the worst possible face on it. Things are definitely on the upswing, though, as Gen. David Petraeus is now saying we might be able to pull out of Baghdad soon.And for a preview of what the next four years could look like around the world, we also found out yesterday that Joe Biden had told senior Israeli officials that “Israel will have to reconcile itself with the nuclearization of Iran,” because “I am against opening an additional military and diplomatic front.”So, on the one hand, we have the McCain foreign policy, which President Bush finally adopted: the heart of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq is now peacefully in the hands of a friendly Iraqi government. On the other, we have the promised Biden foreign policy, which he’s sure a President Obama will dutifully follow: let the ayatollahs get nukes.I know which one I’d rather see.

Interesting analysis from Karl Rove

The headline the Washington Post put on this one when they posted it on their political blog, “The Fix,” had to do with Rove’s projection that Sarah Palin will add 2-3 points to the GOP ticket (which, as he notes, could make a big difference in such a tight race), but there’s a lot more to his analysis than that; actually, this interview (about ten minutes long) with the folks from Newsweek is wide-ranging, and Rove has a number of interesting things to say. Whatever you think of the guy’s political morals, he’s a keen judge of the political landscape.

What the Internet was made for

(which too often isn’t what it’s used for)Since I first discovered Pauline Evans’ blog, Perennial Student, I’ve come to appreciate her work for a number of things—not least that she has a sharp eye for all sorts of interesting stories that I would otherwise miss. A few days ago, for instance, she pointed me to a real piece of good news in the world of biblical scholarship: the guardians of the Dead Sea Scrolls have launched a five-year multi-million dollar project to put them on the Web. Specifically,

the fragments will be photographed first by a 39-megapixel colour digital camera, then by another digital camera in infra-red light and finally some will be photographed using a sophisticated multi-spectral imaging camera, which can distinguish the ink from the parchment and papyrus on which the scrolls were written.Eventually all the fragments will be available to view online, with transcriptions, translations, scholarly interpretations and bibliographies provided for academic study. “The aim in the end is that you can go online and call up the scrolls with the best possible resolution and all the information that exists about them today,” said Pnina Shor, head of the Artefacts Treatment and Conservation Department at the antiquities authority. “We want to provide opportunities for future research on the scrolls. We feel it’s part of our duty to expose them to the world as a whole.”

This is truly splendid, and should be a huge boon to biblical and historical scholarship—especially as it’s already produced unexpected side benefits:

The new infra-red photography has picked out letters that had not previously been visible to the naked eye. “The ink stays dark and the leather becomes light and suddenly you can see text that you may no have been able to see,” said Tanner. “We have revealed some text that has not been previously seen by scholars.” The detailed colour photographs of papyrus fragments may help to identify pieces that fit together and to identify fragments written by the same scribes. Scholars hope this new information might enable them to piece together more of the fragments and so come closer to putting complete sections of the scrolls together.

Barack Obama should be proud of himself

Well, the despicable innuendos that Bristol Palin, Gov. Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter, is the real mother of four-month-old Trig Palin have been abruptly decapitated by brute fact: Bristol Palin is in fact five months pregnant. The McCain campaign knew about it and decided to make the matter public in order to silence the baseless rumors.As a pastor, I’ve married a fair number of couples; I’ve only had one who were still virgins when they said “I do.” I wish that wasn’t the reality in our society, but it is—as, I suspect, it has been in most societies, though the sex-drenched nature of ours makes it harder. I believe premarital sex is a sin and an unhelpful behavior, but I also know full well that we are all sinners, and many of us guilty of far worse. In my own ministry, I choose to address that particular sin by moving couples toward marriage and toward spiritual and relational maturity, including a deeper understanding of the meaning of sex and its place in their relationship. If a couple is willing to accept that responsibility, and its consequences, and make the commitment to building a strong marriage, that’s all I ask of them. I could wish that Ms. Palin had not had sex with her boyfriend, as I could wish for many girls around this country; the fact that she had the courage and grace to commit to her unborn child and to that child’s father is admirable, especially in the face of the public scrutiny that that would entail. (To accept the even greater scrutiny that was bound to come with the VP nomination, when she was surely given a veto by her mother, is admirable as well.) To do as she did—yes, she fell short of what she had been taught, as we all do; and then as Christ calls us to do, she got up and, together with her family, responded to it as redemptively as possible. To have done otherwise would have been a far greater sin than any she has in fact committed.All this is a very common drama in homes around this country. We as Christians try to raise our children to do what is best, and I hope none of my daughters will ever find themselves in this position; but they’re sinners just as we’re sinners. Given the power of sexual attraction and the drive of our hormones, we may do our best to teach and encourage them to save sex for marriage, but even with the best of intentions, they may not. If they get pregnant before marriage, we won’t love them any less, though it will be less than what we hope for them; we will stand by them and give them the support and care they need to go forward from that point as God would have them live. I think it’s a sad commentary on this day and age that such a story could produce a headline like “Assessing the Political Impact of Bristol Palin’s Pregnancy”; that such a thing should have a political impact just seems wrong.This is where I give major, major kudos to Barack Obama. I’ve written about him sharply at points, in large part because of my disappointment—I had hoped for a great deal from him, perhaps more than was really realistic of anyone, and especially of someone in politics; but there are moments when I can still see clearly the reasons for my initial hopes. This is one of them.

Barack Obama addressed a gaggle of reporters this afternoon to discuss the latest goings-on with Hurricane Gustav. After brief opening comments on the much-hyped, overly politicized hurricane, reporters were curious about one thing: 17-year-old Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, made public today.“I have heard some of the news on this and so let me be as clear as possible: I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people’s families are off limits, and people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics,” the Democrat said forcefully. “It has no relevance to Governor Palin’s performance as governor, or her potential performance as a VP. And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories,” he continued.The candidate who himself was born to a teenage mom, reminded reporters, “You know my mother had me when she was 18, and how a family deals with issues and you know teenage children, that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that’s off limits.”

Straight on, square up, dead on point, and absolutely right. Sen. Obama truly should feel proud, because he’s struck a blow for the good here, and not least for decency and fairness in our politics; I think there are a lot of folks in this country who don’t understand that this kind of thing is off limits, and that unfortunately places like Democratic Underground and Daily Kos are among them, but the more people listen to him here, the better off we are. (And if anyone could get people to listen on this point, it’s probably him.)Incidentally, I’m also in complete agreement with Sen. Obama on this:

When asked about an “unnamed McCain advisor” accusing the Obama campaign of spreading despicable rumors surrounding Bristol Palin online, Obama interrupted the reporter mid-question. “I am offended by that statement. There is no evidence at all that any of this involved us,” he said directly. “Our people were not involved in any way in this, and they will not be. And if I ever thought that it was somebody in my campaign that was involved in something like that—they’d be fired,” he added.

Based on the way Sen. Obama has run his campaign so far, there’s no plausible reason to doubt his statement. And if there was in fact someone on the McCain campaign staff accusing his campaign of doing this—well, let’s just say that John McCain has fired people for less already this political season, and in that case, he should put boot to butt personally.HT: JustJuls

Warning: liberal nastiness alert

I posted a couple weeks ago about the attempt by disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters to challenge Barack Obama’s citizenship status, or something (I never was quite clear on what exactly they thought they were going to prove), and my amazement at how crazy some folks get about politics these days; but what’s going on now as certain elements on the Left try to destroy Sarah Palin (there’s no other word for it) far exceeds that for sheer malignant looniness.The craziest, and ugliest, is the attempt by denizens of the Democratic Underground (way underground, folks, with this one) and Daily Kos to claim that Trig Palin isn’t the governor’s son, but in fact her grandson, and that she faked her own pregnancy to cover up her daughter’s. Their evidence? Gov. Palin didn’t show much (as some women don’t), and her daughter Bristol was out of school with mono and looked a little chubbier. That’s it. The funny thing about this attempt at political assassination is that previously, Palin-haters have criticized her for putting politics ahead of the life of her son, traveling too late into her pregnancy—her water actually broke when she was in Dallas for a governor’s conference, and she didn’t immediately go to the hospital, but instead flew back to Anchorage; now, those who want to tear her down are forced to argue that she faked the whole episode. Which is crazy, because if in fact her pregnancy was a charade, what would adding to the charade accomplish except to create a whole new set of doctors who could testify that she wasn’t pregnant? The whole thing is completely nuts; it will be a sad day in American politics if Gov. Palin is forced to release her medical records to disprove it.Next to that, the garden-variety sexism of CNN reporter John Roberts seems almost wholesome. In case you missed that story, he was the one who wondered on air if it was irresponsible of Gov. Palin to run for Vice President when she has an infant with Down Syndrome. The question clearly floored his colleague, Dana Bash; in reply, she raised an important question: “I guess—my guess is that, perhaps, the line inside the McCain campaign would be, if it were a man being picked who also had a baby, but—you know, four months ago with Down’s Syndrome, would you ask the same question?” Somehow, I don’t think so.Driving this, I think, is rage that the GOP (in the person of John McCain) had the sheer gall to pick a VP nominee who’s a woman who’s off the (Democratic) reservation. I heard some of that even in Rebecca Traister’s piece in Salon, and I’ve heard a fair bit more elsewhere. We’re seeing, I think, the true heart of a lot of liberal feminism. It doesn’t matter to them that she’s a woman with a chance to make history; if anything, that makes it worse—she’s not just a normal infidel, she’s an apostate and a traitor, and so must be destroyed. The fact that someone would actually write this (on DU, quoted here) sums it up:

I will attack her for whatever reason suits the purpose of making her look bad to my audience.When I am among secular people I will attack her for being a religious zealot. When I am among people from church, I will attack her for being of a heterodox denomination. When I am among liberals I will attack her for her conservative views. When I am among conservatives I will attack her for her for anything they are prove to view as shortcomings in ideology. When I am among women, I will deride the obvious pandering of her nomination and the fact that McCain must not think much of womens’ [sic] intelligence, when I am among conservative men who dislike women in authority, I will rub their noses in it.If I can attack her for opposite reasons over the course of an afternoon, I will consider it an accomplishment.Same goes for Johnny Boy.

That’s hatred—flat out, pure, triple-distilled, 200 proof, weapons-grade hatred. That’s ugly.

When the Slave Is Your Brother

(Deuteronomy 23:15-16; Galatians 3:26-29, Philemon)

As we talked about last week, Onesimus had a problem, and that gave Paul an opportunity. Or rather, Onesimus had two problems. The first was that he was a slave. Legally, though everyone agreed he was human, he didn’t exactly qualify as a person—he was instead a living, breathing, walking, talking, two-legged piece of property who belonged to a person named Philemon. Onesimus’ second problem was that he had dealt with the first problem by escaping from his master in the city of Colossae and running away to Rome. This obviously got him away from the day-to-day consequences of being enslaved, but it also left him in a dangerous position, because the Roman policy on fugitive slaves was simple and inflexible: if caught, they were returned to their master, who could do whatever he wanted to them. And I do mean whatever.

The good thing for Onesimus was that by the sovereign grace of God, he fell in with the apostle Paul and ended up part of Paul’s household as the apostle was under house arrest in Rome. This was good for him spiritually, as Paul led him to Christ during that time; it was also good for him physically, as Paul was the man who had led his master to Christ, and thus could be an advocate for him with Philemon. As we saw, this gave Paul the opportunity, when the time came to send a letter to the Colossian church, to send Onesimus back with it, with his own letter to Philemon to give him protection; it gave Paul the opportunity to rearrange Philemon’s thinking, and through him the thinking of his whole congregation, about Onesimus specifically, and about slaves in general. It gave him the chance to confront Philemon with the fact that this slave of his, this man whose body and blood he owned, was now also his brother in Christ, and as free in Jesus as Philemon himself; and in so doing, it allowed him to force Philemon to consider very carefully the consequences of that fact.

To what purpose? Well, to understand that, having looked last week at verses 15-16, let’s go back and start with the beginning of the letter. Paul opens it in typical fashion, with a greeting, a thanksgiving, and a prayer, but it’s worth noting a couple things here. First, it’s a personal letter, but not only a personal letter. It’s addressed to Philemon—clearly someone whom Paul holds in high regard—to a woman named Apphia and another man, named Archippos—beyond the fact that both are Christians, we don’t know who they were—and to “the church that meets in your home.” That’s very interesting, because it means that while this letter is to Philemon, with requests and persuasion for Philemon, the whole congregation is going to be reading it over his shoulder, if you will, as he reads it. Partly, that might be to encourage Philemon to do what Paul wants him to do, since if he doesn’t, he’ll look bad in front of everyone; but more than that, I think this tells us that Paul isn’t only concerned about Onesimus and Philemon here. He has some things he wants to teach the whole church in Colossae through this episode.

Sometimes in Paul’s letters, the thanksgiving and the prayer are pretty clearly separated; here, they’re interwoven. He starts off, “I always thank God as I pray for you,” and then he finishes that sentence one half at a time. First, in verse 5, he says why he thanks God for Philemon: because of his faith and his love. The way this is structured in the Greek makes it clear that his love is not just for the people of the church, but also for the Lord Jesus, and that his faith isn’t just for himself, but that in fact his faith is a source of strength for the church.

And then look at verse 6—what do you see? “So that.” The NIV isn’t very helpful here; they have it in the middle when it should be at the beginning. You see, the verb “to pray” isn’t in this verse; that verb is back in verse 4. The interesting thing about verse 6 is that it doesn’t actually give the content of Paul’s prayer, strictly speaking—it begins with “so that” and gives the purpose of Paul’s prayer. It’s a small difference, but it’s an important one for us in understanding this letter. You see, Paul isn’t just saying, “I’m praying this for you, I’m thankful for you, Amen, now let’s get down to business.” Instead, he’s saying, “This is why I’m praying for you, this is what I want to see happen in your life and through your life, and it’s for that reason that I’m going to say what I’m about to say to you.”

What we need to understand here is that when we see “so that” in the Scriptures, we need to pay attention, because this is going to answer the “why” question. I may have said this here before, but the preacher’s question is “so what?” As a preacher, whenever I tell you something, I have to consider that you have the right to say—not in a nasty or disrespectful way, but as an honest question—“so what?” So what’s the reason you’re telling me this? So what’s the reason I should care? So what difference does this make to me in my life? And when you ask “so what,” the answer should come back, “so that”—and so it does here. This is Paul’s purpose for Philemon, it’s what he wants to see happen in Philemon’s life, and so this is the other pole of this letter. I said last week that verses 15-16 are the keynote of this letter, the keystone of its argument, and so they are; but verse 6, the purpose of his prayers for Philemon, is also the purpose of this letter toward which that argument is focused.

That, I’m guessing, is why Paul layered this sentence six feet deep with theologically loaded, meaning-full words, as he’s clearly trying to express something powerful here. Unfortunately, one of the things he succeeded in doing is in making this verse all but impossible to render into English. I feel sorry for Bible translators here, because they can’t explain it, or turn it into a whole paragraph—they have to put just a line or two that makes at least minimal sense in English and captures, as best they can, what Paul is trying to say. That’s why the NIV takes the “so that” from the beginning of the verse and moves it to the middle—I think it’s a mistake, but they’re just trying to get all the pieces to fit into the box in a way that lets people see more or less the right picture. For preaching from, though, it’s not so great, so if you’ll look up at the screen, you’ll see my translation of verse 6. It’s not great English, but like I said, this is a tough verse.

He starts off with the phrase “the communion of your faith.” In the Greek, this is koinonia tou pisteos. Koinonia is the word we most often translate “fellowship”; it’s from the word koine, meaning “common,” and it means doing, sharing, owning, living in common, being involved in something together and being involved in one another’s lives. It’s hard to translate in the simplest of cases because it’s a much richer word than just “fellowship,” with a much deeper meaning than we usually give that word; but here, when it’s combined with “faith”—and specifically, Philemon’s faith—what does that mean? There are, I think, two parts to that. The first is that Philemon’s faith isn’t just his own, but is a faith held in common with the whole Christian church, and indeed that it came to him through the Christian church; he is one who has received this blessing from the church, and thus is indebted to it. The second is that in living out his faith, and especially in serving as a leader in the church, he has expanded that communion, that circle of relationships—his faith has formed a community, and there is a koinonia which has resulted from his faith, including perhaps people whom he personally has led to Christ. The communion of his faith is the communion, the part of the body of Christ, which has shaped him and which he himself has shaped in his turn.

Paul’s hope is that that communion might become effective—this is the word from which we get our word “energy”; in fact, one commentator translates this, “might be a source of energy.” The idea is that the communion of Philemon’s faith, that this community of which he is a part and which he is responsible to lead, would be energized to produce results, to accomplish things. But to accomplish what? The aim here, Paul says, is “full knowledge of all the good that is ours into Christ.” Now, that sounds strange, in the first place because we’re used to thinking of knowledge as a head thing. You go to school, you read books, you listen to the teachers and the professors, and you learn things, and then you take tests and put those things down on paper to show that you know them. In the biblical mindset, though, knowledge isn’t a head thing, or at least not purely so. Sure, it has intellectual content, but it’s more than that. First, it’s active—you don’t actually know something until it’s reflected in how you live your life each day. Second, it’s relational—to know someone is not simply to be aware of facts about them, but to experience them and be in relationship with them.

Thus, when Paul talks about “full knowledge of all the good that is ours,” he’s not talking about possessing a set of facts about what’s good and what isn’t, he’s talking about experiencing in our own lives the good which Christ has given us—experiencing God’s work in our lives, and living accordingly, and so embodying that good in a way that the whole world can see. This is what Paul wants Philemon’s faith to produce, in his own life and also in the broader church, through his leadership of the communion of faith of which he is a part. This sort of witness is what he wants to see in Philemon’s life, and what he wants to see Philemon lead others to through his teaching and example. The desire to see this is the reason why Paul writes this letter.

Now, that doesn’t quite finish verse 6, of course, but don’t worry, I’m not leaving Jesus out of this sermon; I’ll come back to this verse in a minute. Before I do, however, I want to point you to perhaps the most interesting feature of this letter. Look at verse 8: “Therefore”—because this is what I want to see happen in your life—“although in Christ I have every right to tell you what to do here, I’m not going to do that. Instead, I’m going to ask you to do this out of love.” Out of love for whom? Well, partly for Paul, clearly; but this is also more general—out of love for Christ, out of Philemon’s love for the church, out of the love that is chief among “all the good” that he’s just been talking about in verse 6. He goes on to ask two things: first, that Philemon welcome Onesimus as he would welcome Paul himself; and second, that he would send Onesimus back to Paul—and perhaps even first set him free from slavery; I think that’s what Paul’s hinting at in verse 21—so that he could once again help Paul in his ministry in Rome. But where Paul could have simply ordered Philemon to do all these things and been certain of being obeyed, he doesn’t; instead, he just asks him. Why?

Paul doesn’t spell this out, of course, but I think we can see the answer to that in the letter. It’s all about love, and about the communion of Philemon’s faith becoming effective in the full knowledge of all that is theirs into Christ. For Paul, this isn’t just about Onesimus being protected, or getting Onesimus back; there’s something larger at stake here as well: the growth of the Colossian church, which now includes Onesimus. Paul doesn’t just want Philemon to do the right thing, he wants him to do the right thing for the right reason—because if you know the love of Christ in your life, this is what you do; this is what it means to live out that love, first toward Onesimus, and then toward Paul—and he wants him to do it in full view of the church (that’s the main reason this letter is supposed to be read to them as well) so that in doing it, he will set an example for them as they go out and live their own lives.

This, I think, points us back to the end of verse 6, where Paul talks about “all the good that is ours into Christ.” Now, that’s a literal translation, and it’s bad English, but I think it’s important for us to catch the meaning of that little preposition. You can just take it to mean “in,” as the NIV does, and just talk about the good that is ours in Christ; or you can translate it as “toward,” as other commentators do, and focus on the fact that the good that God does in us is supposed to focus our attention on Christ, and move us toward him. It seems to me that we need to hang on to both those aspects and remember that we’re still in process: we’re already in Christ, and in Christ we have all this good that’s beginning to be realized, but it’s only beginning; we still need to be closer to him, and we’re still being drawn closer to him. We need to remember, as Hannah sang earlier, that it truly is in Christ alone that our hope is found, not in anything else. We need to remember that we find our true life in Christ alone, for Christ alone, and that the hope and the goal toward which we live is Christ alone. Let’s pray.