My Critique of M. Bird’s “The Fundamentalists War on Wokeness is a War on Christian Love”

Featured

HTTPS://WWW.PATHEOS.COM/BLOGS/EUANGELION/2020/10/THE-FUNDAMENTALIST-WAR-ON-WOKENESS-IS-A-WAR-ON-CHRISTIAN-LOVE

First, he sets the stage with a foul video that his daughter saw as the apparent example of the critique of Wokeness. Interestingly he compare it to a “Mark Driscoll impersonation”, a person strongly embraced by SEBTS leadership at one time.

Then he made a broad, unevaluated claim that “The whole anti-woke and anti-critical race theory trope strike me as not so much interested in opposing progressive authoritarianism and its divisive racial politics as much as it serves to deny ethnic minorities have any grievances and white churches have any responsibility to do anything about it.”

He then aims his rhetorical guns at the sin others he seems to perceive as those opposed to the Woke Movement:

“If you want to talk about evangelical whoring it applies just as easily to churches who have tethered themselves to white supremacy who have fattened their hearts in the days of slaughter who messianize politicians and Caearize Jesus who crave war like a baby craves its mother’s milk who engage in a form of civil religion that combines the worst of racial prejudices with myths of national infallibility.”

And to those he uses terminology, not blatantly offensive as Durbin’s, but in the same rhetorical vein – demonizing those he sees as opposed to what he embraces.

“That evangelical is the false prophet who leads others to bow down and worship the beast with feet made of Darwinian economics legs comprised of corporations and colonies a stomach of moral indifference to the suffering of others arms made of confederacy and misogyny and a head made of the military-industrial complex.”

And lastly he makes the too common charge that those who are opposed to the Woke Movement are ignoring the biblical mandates when in fact they are not – it is the foundational methodology and actions that are being opposed, but he ignores that kind of in depth evaluation and just chooses to paint with a broad condemnatory brush –  

“Let me be clear love of neighbour requires you to be concerned for the just treatment of your neighbour whether they are Black Hispanic First Peoples LGBT migrant Muslim working-class or even Baptist. Any derogation of a Christian’s duty to be concerned about the welfare and just-treatment of their neighbour is an attack on the biblical love command itself.”

I myself know of no one who is opposed to the Woke Movement that is becoming so pervasive in the SBC that is a racist or any other “anti-someone” that he implies. Myself and others who are opposed to the Woke Movement are so because of the clear philosophically flawed underpinnings. We have long recognized the biblical injunction and by and large have lived by it our whole lives with no other motivation than God’s work in our lives and our recognition of the image of God in all. We do so from a biblical foundation and without false motivation and actions that do no more that attempt to make people guilty for things they have not done nor would ever consider doing. He would have done better by very directly and pointedly aiming his critique to Durbin and not broadstroking the whole “Anti-Woke.”

John 6 and Transubstantiation

John 6.24.-71 – The problems with a literal/physical/transubstantive view

Shawn C. Madden

Within the various ‘traditions’ of the Christian faith, some take a literal view of John 6 and when referencing the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist argue that Jesus’s body is physically present and that we are to physically eat his flesh and physically drink his blood. I do have to add a side note in that in practice the drinking of his blood is very often omitted and it is usually argued that in the host/bread there is present Jesus’s “body, blood, soul, and divinity” thus precluding Jesus’s command to “drink his blood.” That is emblematic of just one of this issues with the transubstantive position. Briefly, the substantiation position argues that the “substance” of the bread is changed to the actual “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus while the “accidents” or outward appearance remains as bread.

The first problem with this while arguing from John 6.24-71 is that in vss. 49-51 Jesus makes a contrast by comparing himself to the manna in the desert from Exodus. He notes that “your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they [physically] died” and then he contrasts that with “I am the living bread that came out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.” To be consistent, if, in his contrast Jesus is making a one to one physical comparison with himself and the manna, and if what we find in the mass is a direct reenactment of what Jesus said in these verses and that the bread is transubstanted and then becomes the physical “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus then you would, to be consistent, have to argue that anyone who physically eats his body will physically live forever. But that is not what we find is it?

In the text of John 6.57-58 Jesus says, “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”

The second problem is a bit cruder. If in fact it has been argued that the host is the “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus to the point that, as when I grew up, if a host is dropped the only proper person to pick it up and retrieve it is a priest, and there is also the argument that there are accounts of some hosts actually bleeding thereby confirming what it is actually the “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus. People are arguing now for a catholic return to requiring the host to be taken on the tongue and not the hand as it more shows that the recipient is taking in the actual “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus.

Then one has to ask, after ingestion, how long does the transubstantive bread remain to actual “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus? Does it cease to be somewhere along the alimentary canal? Does it remain so even to Jesus’s point in Matt. 15.17 – “that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy? (Matt. 15:17 DRA)” and then, do the “accidents” continue to actually be “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus even through the sewer and remain so as the disconnected molecular pieces of the “body of Christ”?

These then are the problems I see with the transubstantive argument that finds itself being argued using John 6. I notice that John 6 is actually tied back into John 3.16. Jesus makes that point clearly at the beginning of the pericope. In vs. 40 Jesus says, “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believing in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” Believing, having faith in him is where one finds eternal life. He reemphasizes that in vs. 63 with, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

John 6 is a continuation of 3.16 and points entirely and solely to faith, not physical eating. Those taking the transubstantive position completely miss that Jesus is giving a metaphor of faith with eating. The crowd was seeking a sign and he gave them one.

MATRIARCH

“Matriarch:” ‘tis a title of which I have always held in disdain.  It was common with the American Indians.  My ancestral Clarks, Lees, Henrys, Haneys, etc. and my wife’s ancestral Barrons, Gildeas, McDonoughs, etc., recognized a certain authority and even a domination by their wives in the dim past of Gaelic history.

And ‘tis me, a young vigorous man not yet seventy-one years old, lying flat on me back, with me sixty-five year old snip of a wife parading around ordering me to stay in bed where she put me, even making me put on pajamas.  But I still had me pipe handy, though it didn’t taste right.  Of course I was intendin’ to do that very thing, so it was not as if I was takin’ orders from the likes of her.

We had come a-visiting to this eighty acre farm to babysit with our three grandchildren, while our daughter and her slave, another downtrodden “Mick,” took a business-vacation trip to a warmer climate.  They had left without a care, knowing that hickory-tough grandpa would be after taking care of everything.

We had arrived in typical Ohio January weather, as the temperature cooperated with the snow as it continued to fall.

The bugs got me down shortly after they had left, but I would not admit it until everyone turned against me, including two of my sons who were on their way home and happened to stop by.  They each outweigh me by once and a half, but I can still whip them even if they don’t know it.  And, bad cess to the both of them, they always take sides with their mother.  So, nothing would do them but haul me away to a hospital where they had a doctor take a faked-up picture of me rugged chest, and I’ve no doubt that they bribed him to order me to bed on a diet of nasty medicine, after punching around on me 1 with his needle.  And this, with all the good whiskey they could have bought me for a lot less money.  They even went to the extent of calling my daughter in Dallas, Texas, who is a registered nurse, and the other of eight spalpeens.  And the likes of her, me own daughter, giving me orders over the telephone.

‘Twas a sad day for the O’Haney, with her telling me what to do, and what not to do; as if I wouldn’t know what to do about a little thing like pneumonia.

And with all this scheming and behind the back planning, they dealt me the underhanded blow; they put the Matriarch in charge.  And them knowing all the time that I would be doing the proper intelligent things without someone having to tell me to do this and not do that.

But I have the advantage of them.  I’m remembering that the seventeenth of March is not far away and that me and my Leprechaun will be King for a day; so their domineering ways do not affect my sweet imperturbable nature.

I was watching “The Matriarch” this morning from my bedroom window, which is upstairs where the three grandchildren are under my stern eye while she is out.  She was at the barn feeding the nine head of cattle, the two horses, and a pony.  “Jesse,” the ever guardian Doberman, was with her, having an eye to the animals, stalking them with that proud, fearless demeanor of challenge, that dared even “Sampson,” the two thousand pound bull, to question the least desire of the Matriarch.  The calico cat was also in attendance; a sort of “Maid in Waiting.”

And a vision appeared.  The scene was bathed in early morning sunshine.  The mockingbird we’d fed each day had ‘lighted on the pasture fence.  The Matriarch’s pitchfork became a scepter, the slouch-hat became a halo-like tiara, the too-big coat was robes 2 of velvet and fine spun gold, and the mockingbird’s song became the soft strains of a harp. It was top o’ the mornin’ for the O’Haney and a proud day for himself.

Princess Leila vs The Spider Queen

By Andrew, son of Kevin


When we first moved into our house it was perfect and clean. But it was bare of all the little touches of love that make someplace a home. So Princess Leila went about decorating the house with a fury that only a woman can accomplish. She brought in new furniture and decorations. She set about throwing trinkets and sparkling things in different locations. Creating our little kingdom of warmth and love. She also began making a long list of chores for me to accomplish. Such as painting the walls a different color and hanging pictures, along with other various tasks. As my list of tasks grew larger and larger. I was not all that upset when I had to go back to work. Even though I knew my list would be that much longer when I returned. Now I say my chore list grew larger and larger. I do have standing orders. I am the gate keeper to all things that creep and crawl. I am the Knight that stands guard against all critters. When it comes to the animal kingdoms multi legged or winged invaders I am death incarnate. Little did I know the Spider Queen was waiting for me to abandon my post. The Spider Queen waited until dusk to strike. As the sun set on our Princess’s little castle the Spider Queen invaded.

The Spider Queen was not just any spider, but she was a wolf spider. I’m not sure if you’re aware of wolf spiders but they can be very large. From tip to tip they can be as large as your hand. The larger ones are often mistaken for tarantulas. They also carry their young on theirs backs. Thousands and thousands of little specs of terror.

As our hero princess was finishing up her day and making new plans for the next. The Spider Queen attacked. Princess Leila encountered her foe in the kitchen (actually the breakfast nook, but in any event). Now I said I’m the Knight that stands guard, but Leila is not defenseless. She was trained by Sheila The Great. She who could train any animal and could dispatch creepy crawlies with ease. Leila knew what she had to do. Our hero grabbed her weapon of choice. A boot. As Sheila the Great had taught her. “ Because a shoe will just piss em off”. Princess Leila reared back and brought the weapon down with a fury! The boot struck down the Spider Queen and the exceptionally large spider was smited! Victory was at hand. Or so she thought. The Spider Queen had a secret weapon. A weapon of instant terror and panic. She was not just a Spider Queen but a Spider Queen Mother! The most horrific of enemies. As Princess Leila disengaged, thinking she was victorious. A second attack occurred. Thousands and thousands of tiny specs of disgusting horrific terror exploded from the corpse of the fallen queen. They spred like wild fire. In all directions they fled. The diameter of their attack grew larger and larger with an unimaginable speed. As the horde grew larger Leila composed herself and calmly reengaged. No, no she did not. She lost her mind. The sight of a kabilion tiny spiders spreading all throughout your house with an alarming speed would rattle anybody. But fear not our dear readers. Princess Leila would not be defeated. However, she would break the Genova convention by using chemical warfare. She quickly retrieved a can of bug spray (or wood cleaner or whatever had spraying capabilities) and redeployed the Boot of Vengeance ! Spraying and smashing everything that creeped and crawled until nothing moved.

After what probably seemed like an eternity battling the demons that spawned from hell itself. She had won. All invaders had been vanquished. Although she saw little spiders from time to time as a result from PTSD (post traumatic spider disorder). She was finally victorious. 

She called me after the battle to let me know that we needed to employ an exterminator. No, let me rephrase that. She ordered me to contact an exterminator immediately. It was definitely not a request. As a matter of fact it was a top priority. I did not question the order and happily added it to the top of my ever growing chore list.

The Uterine Brothers Of Jesus

My question on this issue has always been, how, when looking at the text of Matt. 13.55, someone says to themselves, ‘Gee, that can’t mean that!’

Though the actual importance of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not as great as some imply; it has no salvific import, one way or the other, it is extremely important as an indicator of one’s or one’s church’s method of interpretation or hermeneutic. In that vein, I would argue that if a church goes to so great an extent to “make[s] the word ‘brother’ a non-argument” when its meaning is so very crystal clear and in no need of an “infallible teacher” to clear up what is already clear, then the more weighty matters of Truth and Salvation as taught by that church are open to question. If you are confused about what adelphos means and go to such great lengths to prove that it doesn’t mean brother, then you are very likely confused or wrong about what other words mean.

The easy things first. The whole argument over “until” has been turned around backwards by the Catholic church. It does not necessitate a change in state, conjugal relations in the case of Matthew 1.25, but the easiest, obvious, surface sense of the phrase is that there was a change—after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph carried on a normal, natural, blessed, marital relationship and from that other children were born. Matthew himself in 2.13 uses “until” to mark a change when Joseph was told to stay in Egypt until told to move. The larger context of Matthew’s narrative is the key to 1.25. Matthew used “until” and then later in 13.55 identified brothers and sisters of Jesus. The obvious impression of the combination of the word until in 1.25 coupled with the brothers in 13.55 means that Joseph and Mary had sex and had children. Until can mean either a change of state or not. In Matthew 1.25 and 13.55 it seems obvious that a change is intended.

Concerning the reformationists, there is much to agree with, there is much to disagree with. I suspect you don’t agree with many of their writings and positions, though you find agreement with them on this issue. There is much about them that I agree with, but on this issue, and others, I disagree with them. In the passages that introduce us to the fact that Jesus had brothers by Mary (Matt. 13.55 & Mk 6.3) the syntax makes it clear (in addition to the very clear word αδελφος. In Matthew the mother and four brothers are the subject of one verb. Joseph is treated separately. Matthew goes to great lengths to separate the legal-but-not-biological father of Jesus from his biological mother and brothers. To push the syntax would lead to the conclusion that Mary is more related to the brothers than Joseph is, quite the opposite of what the Catholic church used to teach, following the Protoevangelium Jacobi argument. Matthew chooses to place Jesus’ brothers with his biological mother, not his legal father. In both passages, the mother and brothers are treated together and not apart; they are treated as a unit.

So too, to take the argument that ‘brothers’ may also mean a relationship other than uterine sibling, which it can (context will tell), then to be consistent you also have to admit that so does ‘father’ and ‘mother.’ So to argue that ‘brothers’ in this instance means ‘cousin’ or someone other than a uterine sibling then to be logical and consistent you have to indicate that ‘mother’ means aunt or someone other then uterine parent. So too with ‘father.’ As you argue, Joseph then was Jesus’ ‘uncle.’

But, the context points very clearly to nuclear family—father, mother, siblings.

Now, if I read you correctly, you made the point from Acts 1.13 that “…JAMES, the son of Alphaeus, and SIMON Zelo’tes, and JUDE the brother of JAMES.” From these four passages, we see we have another ‘Mary’, who was the wife of Cleophas (Alphaeus).” James the Less, the Apostle, is the son of Alphaeus. You erroneously label Jude as James’ brother (following Duoay or King James). Most modern translations more often note that Jude is the son of James (based on grammar, the word son is not in the text). The New Jerusalem Bible (1985 ed. Nihil Obstat John Deehan, Imprimatur Cardinal George Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminster) notes this and further notes that “The apostle Jude is not the Jude ‘brother’ of Jesus, see Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3, and brother of James (Jude 1). Nor is it likely that the apostle James son of Alphaeus was James, the brother of the Lord, 12:17; 15:13 etc.” Now, I am not sure of the relationship of the magιsterium to a Nihil Obstat or an Imprimatur but that note disagrees with what you are saying as to the identification of the persons in the verses that you note. The James and Jude of the list of the Apostles is not the James and Jude in Matt 13.55 and Mark 6.3.

It is instructive to note James the son of Alphaeus in these verses. As you rightly pointed out, he is an apostle, one of the twelve (Mt 10.3; Acts 1.13). He may or not be the James the less of Mark 15.40. The question then is, is he the James, the brother of the Lord of Matt 13.55 and Mark 6.3?

In Acts 1.13 we have the following account:

Acts 1.13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.

Now notice verse 14. Acts 1:14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

Notice in the above that a distinction is made between “the twelve” and the brothers of Jesus. If the argument is made that the James of vs. 13 is one of the “brothers of Jesus” mentioned in Mark 6.3 and Matthew 13.55, then who are the brothers of Jesus mentioned in vs. 14? It is obvious from the passage that the James of verse 13 (the son of Alphaeus) is not to be equated with the James of Mk. 6.3 and Matt. 13.55. A distinction is made between James, the son of Alphaeus and James, the brother of the Lord.

Paul always makes a distinction between the apostles and James, the brother of the Lord. If they are to be equated as you imply, the why does Paul make the distinction clear? There is no reason or evidence for equating James, the son of Alphaeus with James who became the head of the Jerusalem church and who is called “the Lord’s brother.” Paul always mentions James separate from the twelve. (1 Cor 15.5-7; Gal. 1.19).

Early church history does know of those who did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Tertullian (~200 AD) arguing against the docetic views of the Marcionites states emphatically that Jesus’ brothers were truly (vere) his brothers by blood. Eusebius quotes Hegesippus (2nd century) who speaks of James and Jude as “brothers of the Lord according to the flesh.” Josephus calls James the “brother of Jesus.” It was not until Jerome (~380 AD) (Protoevangelium Jacobi accepted) that there was a move to turn Mary’s virginity from merely ante-partum to post partum. As much as Jerome knew scripture, it seems he had way too much Greek influence when it came to matters of asceticism. This included a very low view of the physical aspects of marriage.

The giving of John to Mary and Mary to John more than likely relates the fact that Jesus knew that his brothers and family would not be available to take care of her as long as John would. Based on your argument, even if the “brothers” of Matt 13 are not hers, they enjoyed a closer relationship to her than did John and hence would be closer to her and would naturally take care of her before John would. However, there are strong indicators that Salome of Mk 15.40 is the mother of the sons of Zebedee of Matt 27.56 and Mary’s sister in John 19.25. Jesus would then be putting his mother in the care of his first cousin. She would go to live in her sister’s household. Jesus also knew that John would outlive everyone and would be available to care for Mary until she died.

The scriptural evidence is strong for the fact that Jesus had real, physical, blood siblings from his mother and his step father. To argue otherwise flies in the face of the clear teachings of the Bible and relies more on the “traditions of men” then the counsel of God. You may not (probably not) buy my argument. But, if what I have shown rings true and your view of Mary’s perpetual virginity is wrong, it is time to examine other things. Within the church that Jesus founded there are many sects. Roman Catholicism is one of them, there are many others. Within each of the sects there are disagreements. Within yours there are many and they are heated, I know, I surf. All of those who truly trust Christ as their savior are Christians and members of his church. There is no requirement to belong to a particular sect and none can claim exclusive authority. It is God’s love for us through the sacrifice of his son that unites us, not a membership in one particular group.

The confusion between the James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas from Matt 13.55 and Mark 6.3 and the Mark 15.40 mentioning of “Mary the mother of James the less and Joses” may be cleared up by a simple look at the cross passages set side by side. Those who wish to negate what Matt 13.55 and Mark 6.3 clearly says about the siblings of Jesus all to often erroneously and ignorantly point to the mention of “Mary the mother of James the less and Joses” in the Mark 15.40 passage. This ignores the Matt 13.55 and Mark 6.3 passage that lists Jesus’ brothers as “James, Joses, Judas, and Simon”, four, not two. Those denying the siblings of Jesus, following Jerome, have found themselves positing Mary having a sister of the same name, not impossible but not well attested outside of the George Foreman family. The women going to the tomb on Easter morning were Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mary’s sister and Jesus’ aunt) Mk 16.1 Matthew 27.56 among whom was Mark 15.40 And there were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene John 19.25 Therefore the soldiers did these things. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus Mary Magdalene Mary the mother of James and Joseph Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, mother of the sons of Zebedee Salome Mary the wife of Clopas His mother’s sister His mother

Matthew 27.56 among whom wasMark 15.40 And there were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom wereJohn 19.25 Therefore the soldiers did these things. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus
Mary MagdaleneMary MagdaleneMary Magdalene
Mary the mother of James and JosephMary the mother of James the Less and Joses,Mary the wife of Clopas
mother of the sons of ZebedeeSalomeHis mother’s sister
  His mother

The Breasts of St. Barbara: Or, How Spelling Can Spark A Donnybrook

In the Marine Corps culture of MOS job classification there is a hierarchy. As the variety of MOSs is vast I shall restrict this conversation to the combat arms; i.e., Infantry (03XX) and Artillery (08XX). A year ago I could have included Armor (18XX) but since then the Corps has divested itself of that field and benefit and so it may get no more than a passing comment. In this culture, of the two – Infantry and Artillery, the arty guys consider themselves more sophisticated, considering the grunts as lunkheads and bumpkins; necessary but not quite as well heeled and genteel. Despite the cultural differences, the two groups work well together and have made their collective mark on the annals of warfare and the graveyards of our foes.

My initial desire when signing to the men’s department of the US Sea Service was to be a grunt, like Sgt Stryker. As it was, my trek to the 03 community began as a Remington Raider, then Explosive Ordnance Disposal (John Wayne would have done that), then as a Drill Instructor. And then, due entirely to the grace of God, I was accepted into a college program that would culminate in me finding myself graduating OCS, getting the requisite lobotomy, and pinning on a pair of butter bars denoting my entrance to the realm of Officers and Gentlemen.

After proving that I had what it took to be an officer, I joined others at The Basic School to learn how to be an officer – mostly physical training and field work sprinkled with a smattering of knives, forks, and pinkies. At TBS I was afforded the opportunity to become a Naval Aviator (a childhood dream never realized) and as some of my lobotomy did not take as evidenced by my scores on the “So you want to be an Aviator Test” thus indicating that I apparently had the requisite remaining grey matter to decipher the concepts of flight and the myriad of instruments to pursue that endeavor somewhat safely. Now, I do need to note that in the culture of Marine MOSs, the Naval Aviators see themselves as the highest born elite of Corps’ Gentlemen, sitting far higher than their terra bound fellow warriors. But, I learned, much to my surprise, that my heart was not in the clouds but bound firmly on the ground and so, in fulfillment of my original quest, I requested and received transference to the Mud Marines. I spent two years with 1st Battalion, 6th Marines (of Belleau Wood fame) before resigning, for family needs, my Regular commission and joining the ranks of the Reserves.  I spent most of my time with Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Marines as an 81 Mortar Platoon Commander, Weapons Company Commander, and Battalion Fire Support Coordinator. Due to education needs (pursuit of a Ph.D.) I found myself in the Individual Ready Reserve (not attached to any one unit) when Desert Storm hit. I checked with 1/23 and they were full up on personnel and had no openings, and so I looked around for a unit that was answering the call as the proverbial and ever anticipated balloon went up. What I found was Headquarters Battery, 14th Marines, the Reserve Artillery Regiment headquarters unit. They had an opening and were sending eleven Officers and Marines to Camp Lejeune to augment 1st Battalion 14th Marines. This old grunt found a home with the cannon cockers as we headed to war.

Actually, it was Norway. While others were in Desert Storm winning fame, accolades, and the Klingon Medal in the best war since 1898 (more blue on blue casualties than red on blue), we were sent to Norway on a NATO Operation called Battle Griffin (cool name). We froze (300 miles north of the Artic Circle, in February, in tents for 3 weeks), maneuvered along the fiord at Narvic, froze, ate reindeer lips and blood oranges, froze and successfully both kept alive and kept Ivan from coming down from the north and supporting Achmed. Desert Storm came to a successful conclusion while we were yet in Norway. We returned after three weeks and were transported on the aircraft and the buses which had just recently embarked the Desert Storm Heroes and settled down to putting our gear back in shape and prepping for our return home. I did get an interesting two weeks on the James River participating as the Fire Support Coordinator for a Riverine Operation the Marine Corps was testing. Ironically, during the whole Desert Storm evolution, my old grunt unit, 1/23, was parked at Camp Pendleton not doing much.

As we finished getting our gear ready to turn in and return home we conducted a standard Marine Corps Tradition – the Mess Night. And that is when the trouble happened.

A Mess Night is one of roast beef (“Fit For Consumption”), cigars, and several types of wine, stronger beverages, and braggadocios.

The culmination of the evening was a series of remarks from various members concerning our training, operations, comradeship, and liberty experiences. The deeper into the evening and the cups made for more and more interesting comments among the comrades in arms. Much talk of the King of Battle, the role of artillery in history, the necessity and effect of heavy duty close in fire support requested from the needy, ignorant grunts to the ever obliging weaponizers of geometry. Much was said of the killer aspect of math aided as always by prayers to their patron saint, the wondrous Saint Barbara. Barbara, the sainted patroness of the field artillery. Now, theoretically each service branch should have a patron saint to watch over their needs and wants and successes and to pass on to Higher Command the prayers of the faithful, but it seems that only the artisans of artillery make constant appeals to a power greater than their FDC. I looked into the possibility of the Infantry having a patron saint and all I could find was a vague and infrequent reference to Saint Maurice. His name was enough to explain few appeals to his services in the grunt ranks.

Even prior to joining the gentlemanly ranks of 1/14 I had been very much aware of St. Babs as my father was an Army Artillery Officer who went so far as to name one of my sisters after her. Being a Catholic, he had a higher than normal admiration and devotion to the vaulted saintress of HE and Willy Pete. As such, as the evening wore on I felt more and more inclined to rise and sing the praises of the Lass who let me join her and her acolytes and learn the manly art of massing metrics in the employment of mayhem.

And so, I arose with cup raised. For them what know me and are curious at this, it was merely a cup of dihydrous oxide. I get in enough trouble on me own without the aid of spirits.

I toasted, “To my cannon cocker brother Marines, thank you for inviting this old grunt along on your escapdes and adventures to the ‘snows of far off northern lands.’ I am indebted to your fine tutelage in the gentlemanly art of weaponized geometry. During these last months I have sucked long and hard on Saint Barbara’s Teats, and I am the better for it.”

Thinking back on this incident I think I know where the problem lay. I blame the gun line guys more than Fire Direction Center guys as their craniums were more concussed due to close proximity of speeding 155 lumps of love on their way. The FDC folks tend to be more reserved, thoughtful, introspective.

The problem is orthography (spelling for the gun line guys and grunts). The body part of the object of the discussion may be spelled one of two ways; teat and tit. You may ask, “Professor, what does the difference in spelling matter?” Well, my curious one, “much and more!” You see, those two anatomical objects of interest serve two functions, to which the two spellings refer. Teats are meant to provide nourishment of a physical nature – to lactate forth milk to nourish and sustain, and to speed on growth and health. Whereas tits have a wholly different and just as important function. Their nourishment is affection and love and sexual play.

Now, let me make this point in the realm of biblical hermenuetics. In Luke 11.27 we find a woman in the crowd when Jesus was speaking remark, “blessed be the womb that bore you and the teats that nursed you.” (meown translation if you were wondering. I am, after all, a professor). Here we find the nourishing and sustaining function and power of teats. Anyone so nourished knows the truth of this.

Conversely, in Proverbs 5.19 we find, “as a loving deer and a graceful doe, let her tits satisfy at all times.” (again, meown translation, see above note). Here we find their function as providing sexual play and satisfaction at all times. Anyone so noursished knows the wondrous and exhilarating truth of this.

Now, as I mentioned, we had been prepping for our return to our loved ones (6 months away!) and for we who had loving arms awaiting us and our husbandly duties, the spelling of the spousal accoutrements that we looked so forward to is spelled the second way and not the first.

But, of course, when referencing the good patron of the gun guys, the first spelling was my reference, of course.

But some (gun line guys I highly suspect) did not catch this purposeful and entirely well meaning reference on the part of mehumble self and so some were rising from their seats with reddened faces with shouts of, “What did he say about Saint Barbara’s TITS?!?!” (see how they spelled it?). But, fortunately, there were FDC guys near by who calmed them and explained the orthographic distinction so skillfully (and surprisingly no doubt) wrought by the mud Marine. Tempers cooled, folks settled down, and I got both severe sideline glances of poorly tamped anger (gun line guys) and winks of literary and rhetorical appreciation (FDC guys) for my Irish born skill.

And we left that gathering anticipating our return journey with only one spelling on our minds.

Robert Longacre’s Joseph, chapt. 7: Variations in Formulas of Quotations

Compiled by John Sansom

FunctionFormulaNote
Dialogue InitiationSp:N + Add:NIntroduction and integration of a participant requires that he be explicitly presented more than once (158).
Secondary Dialogue InitiationSp:Ø + Add:prInitiatory dialogue where the participants have previously been well identified.
Continuing DialogueSp:Ø + Add:N/prBasic quotation formula; Used when no special implications are being communicated.
Dialogue RedirectionSp:N + Add:NWhen formula occurs outside the initiation sequence, it indicates a sudden redirection in the dialogue.
Equal Status DialogueSp:N + Add:NConsistent occurrences of formula outside the two previously mentioned functions indicates the speaker and addressee are of equal status; May also indicate a mild tension between participants.
Decisive Intervention/ Speaker DominanceSp:N + Add:prIndicates pulling rank on the part of the speaker or an attempt to make reality what he is saying. A quick succession of quotation formula between participants may indicate a struggle for dominance.
Express Social Amenities/ Speaker ComplianceSp:Ø + Add:ØNon-aggressive and reassuring; Also used to introduce the last utterance of a dialogue indicating compliance on the part of the speaker.
Argumental StalemateSp:Ø + Add:ØFor this and previous function look closely in previous clauses for possible indications of speaker and/or addressee, in which case these functions would not apply (166). Indicates either no tension or an attempt to downplay tension between participants.
Finality DialogueSp:N + Add:ØSpeech that does not anticipate an answer; Also includes expressions of puzzlement and outrage.
Addressee FocusedSp:Ø + Add:NSpeech is addressee centered.
From SEBTS Course TRA6200 Discourse Analysis Spring 2012 Taught by Shawn C. Madden, PhD.