12 August 2012

In Context


Barack Obama claims only that his legislative and foreign policy achievements in his first two years matched those of “any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln” in “modern history.” Some Obama enthusiasts are less restrained.

They suggest that among presidents, he ranks as the most learned since John Quincy Adams, the most profound since James Madison and the most visionary since Thomas Jefferson. And he is, of course, the most rhetorically gifted politician since Pericles.

Yet, remarkably, he is frequently misunderstood. How can this be?

After the June 8 news conference in which he said “the private sector is doing fine,” he, responding to the public’s strange inability to parse plain English, held another news conference in which he said: “It’s absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine; that’s the reason I had a press conference.”

That clarified everything, but then on July 13 the public, which Obama really must regard as a disappointment, again failed to comprehend him. In Roanoke, Va., he gave what any reasonable person must admit was an admirably pithy and entirely clear distillation of his political philosophy: “You didn’t build that.” The public’s obtuseness forced his campaign to run an ad saying “my words about small business” had been taken “out of context.” Ah, context.

In late October 1980, as Ronald Reagan prepared for his one debate with President Jimmy Carter, Reagan’s aides worried that Carter might unearth some of the inconveniently colorful things Reagan had said over the years, such as when Patty Hearst’s kidnappers demanded the distribution of free food, including canned goods, Reagan reportedly said something like: This would be a good time for a botulism epidemic. When an aide wondered how Reagan could explain that quip, there was a long pause, and then another aide impishly suggested: “Say it was taken out of context.”

As Obama tries to cope with the public’s peculiar inability to discern his meanings, perhaps he can take comfort from very similar difficulties of another candidate for national office. On Aug. 18, 1920, the Democrats’ vice presidential nominee, campaigning in Butte, Mont., said that it would be fine for the United States to join the League of Nations because our nation would have multiple votes. He assured listeners that “the votes of Cuba, Haiti, San Domingo, Panama, Nicaragua and of the other Central American states” would not be cast “differently from the vote of the United States,” which is “the big brother of these little republics.”

Then, referring to his days as assistant secretary of the Navy, the vice presidential candidate said: “You know I have had something to do with running a couple of little republics. The facts are that I wrote Haiti’s constitution myself and, if I do say so, I think it a pretty good constitution.” He added: “Why, I have been running Haiti or San Domingo for the past seven years.”

As David Pietrusza writes in “1920: The Year of Six Presidents,” Haiti and the Dominican Republic had been U.S. protectorates since July 1915 and May 1916, respectively, but the boastful candidate had not written any constitution. Nevertheless, he repeated his indelicate claim — U.S. Marines had recently been involved in some Haitian bloodshed — at three more Montana stops and then in San Francisco.

When, inevitably, the candidate’s words caused consternation here and there, he insisted he never said them, adding magnanimously, “I feel certain that the misquotation was entirely unintentional.” But the controversy continued, so on Sept. 2, in Maine, he added: “I should think that it would be obvious that one who has been so largely in touch with foreign relations through the Navy Department during the last seven years could not have made a deliberate false statement of this kind.”

Idaho’s Republican Sen. William Borah dryly said: “I am willing to admit that he didn’t say it, though I was there and heard him say it at the time.” Thirty-one witnesses of the Butte speech signed an affidavit attesting that the candidate had said what he was reported to have said, but public attention had wandered and the issue faded.

Far from being badly injured by this episode, the vice presidential candidate went on to become one of the three presidents in “modern history” — Obama includes Lincoln — whose achievements in their first two years are, Obama says, “possible” to compare to his. The candidate was one of liberalism’s saints, Franklin Delano Roosevelt



Context - Flame


The first task of the interpreter is called exegesis
(extra Jesus)
Naw, I said exegesis, man
It’s a Latin word
Don’t be scared
Matter of fact, I laughed when I first heard it, too.

It's spelled e-x-e-g-e-s-i-s
Guarantee you learn this process and you’ll be blessed
Exegesis is the careful systematic
Study of scripture for the Christian
This should be a habit.

But to discover the original intended meaning
Of the author to his audience is exegeting
But to do this man you need some tools
So let me recommend a couple of things you should use
'aight cool

First, man, you need this book
It’s called a commentary and it helps you to further look
Into some essential things you need to check
In order for you to properly interpret the text.

With this skill this should keep you from heresy
And keep you from going through theological therapy, 
The words of God will change your life
If you Keep the text in its context
With this skill
This should keep you from heresy
And keep you from going through theological therapy
The words of God will change your life,
If you keep the text in its context.

You need some more books
I know its gettin’ scary
But, you need some definitions 
Get a bible dictionary
To go without these tools 
You can’t afford it
That’s why you need this book called a concordance
And, every time you start to think this is too much to do
I recommend you reflect on 2 Timothy 2 and 15
And, you’ll see what I mean

Simply because the serpent is lurking to glean
Those who don’t read
And, those who don’t study
To keep a lock on this treasure
From unlocking the pleasure
'Cause God’s word is lovely

That’s why we hold it as precious as pearls
To let our exegetical work reflect to the world
In accuracy
Hoping that you happy to see
The very words God breathe handle accurately
Yeah, so many take text out of context
And, come up with mess and more nonsense

With this skill this should keep you from heresy
And keep you from going through theological therapy, 
The words of God will change your life
If you Keep the text in its context
With this skill
This should keep you from heresy
And keep you from going through theological therapy
The words of God will change your life
If you keep the text in its context

What you don’t wanna do is called eisegesis
(I see Jesus)
Naw, I said eisegesis, man
You a silly, dude.
It's Latin, too.
And, that’s just the act of when your adding to
Or the process of reading one’s own meaning
Into the text and that’s just eisegeting

Don’t fret 
I know these words are new
And phrases, too.
But, it’s cool to go back to school.
It's spell ei-se-gesis.

Guarantee you learn this process and God’ll be vexed
A text can never mean what it never meant before
To its original reader or author
So, if you run into a difficult passage
And, you know the Bible never contradicts itself
Then, turn the pages to a parallel passage 
And just let the scripture interpret itself.

With this skill this should keep you from heresy
And keep you from going through theological therapy, 
The words of God will change your life
If you keep the text in its context
With this skill
This should keep you from heresy
And keep you from going through theological therapy
The words of God will change your life
If you keep the text in its context



No comments:

Post a Comment