text:
43 S.Ct. 118
67 L.Ed. 232
CONDON NAT. BANK et al.
No. 98.
Argued Nov. 15 and 16, 1922.
Decided Nov. 27, 1922.
[Syllabus from pages 235-236 intentionally omitted]
This suit was begun as an action at law in the District Court of Kansas by the Liberty Oil Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Virginia, and a citizen of that state, against the Condon National Bank, a corporation organized under the banking laws of the United States and resident and doing business in Kansas. Plaintiff by its petition averred that it had made a contract with the Atlas Petroleum Company of Oklahoma, C. M. Ball, Isadore Litman, P. G. Keith, and J. H. Keith, residents of Kansas, by which it agreed to purchase and they agreed to sell 160 acres, more or less, of oil lands in Butler county, Kansas, for $1,150,000. By the contract, the purchaser was required to deposit $100,000 with the Condon National Bank simultaneously with a deposit of the contract, and this sum, together with the assignments, transfers, and conveyances under the contract, was to be held by the bank and by it to be delivered in accordance with the conditions of the contract. The main conditions, and the only ones here material, were that the vendors should furnish an abstract of the title to the property contracted to be sold, showing a good and marketable title in them, that the vendee should have seven days in which to examine the abstract, and that, if its examination should show a good and marketable title, the vendee should pay the bank $1,050,000, the remainder of the purchase money, and the bank should deliver the deeds of assignment and transfers to the vendee, and the vendor should deliver possession of the land. If the examination showed a good and marketable title, and the vendee should refuse to pay the money then due from it, the $100,000 was to be delivered to the vendors as liquidated damages, and the contract was to become null and void. In the event that the examination should disclose that the title was not good and marketable, the vendee was to notify the vendors, and they were to have 30 days in which to perfect the title, and should they neglect in that time to do so the $100,000 on deposit was to be returned to the vendee, and the contract was to become null and void.
The petition averred that the money and the contract were deposited in the defendant bank, that the abstract of title was submitted, that an examination of the abstract submitted showed that the title of the vendors was not good and marketable, in that in the chain of title the vendors claimed under the deed of an assignee for the benefit of creditors filed in a Colorado court and taking effect by the laws of that state, but never authorized or confirmed by a court of competent jurisdiction under the laws of Kansas, as required by the law of the latter state, that this defect was not remedied by the vendors within the time required by the contract and on July 11, 1918, the plaintiff duly notified the defendant bank of this and demanded payment of the money deposited, that the defendant refused and appropriated the sum to its own use to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $100,000 and interest at 6 per cent. from the date of the demand and refusal.
The defendant bank answered, admitting all the facts averred in the petition, except those as to the character of the title shown by the abstract, and alleged that the vendors in the contract of sale had also demanded that the deposit of $100,000 be paid to them on the ground that the vendee had refused without right to accept a good and marketable title to the land sold, that the defendant bank had no interest in the deposit, and offered to pay the sum into court or to such person as the court should order. The defendant asked that the vendors be made parties and required to set up their claim to the deposit, that the court make proper order as to the disposition of the money, and that the defendant, upon compliance with the order, be discharged from all liability in connection therewith. The court granted the prayer of the answer and 'ordered, adjudged, and decreed' that vendors be made parties, and set up their claim within 20 days. The vendors waived summons and filed an answer and cross-petition, in which they averred that the petition of the plaintiff did not state a cause of action, and denied as much of the petition as averred that there were defects in the abstract of title which prevented it from being good and marketable. By the cross-petition they asked for the payment of the $100,000 deposit and also a judgment for $1,050,000 as the purchase price for the land, title to which they had tendered, and for general relief. This cross-petition the plaintiff answered, making the same issue as that in the petition and answer. A jury was waived in writing. A bill of exceptions was taken, embodying all the evidence, which was signed by the judge, and the same evidence was included in a transcript also certified to by the judge.
The District Court on the evidence found generally for the vendors, and from its opinion it appeared that it found the title good and marketable, and that upon plaintiff's refusal to accept the same the vendors became entitled to the $100,000 as liquidated damages. Accordingly it was 'considered, ordered, and adjudged' that the vendors, interveners, recover $10,750 as interest on the $100,000 from June 30, 1918, that the Condon Bank, defendant, be discharged from further liability, and that the interveners have judgment for the $100,000 then in the registry of the court. There is nothing in the record to show that the defendant bank was dismissed until this final judgment, although, under some authority not made a matter of record, it had turned the money into the registry of the court.
An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals and a supersedeas bond given. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the action was a suit at law, that under section 4 of the Act of September 6, 1916 (39 Stat. 727 [Comp. St. § 1649a]), to amend the Judicial Code, it had the power and it was its duty to consider the appeal taken as a writ of error, and that, as the bill of exceptions showed no special findings of fact in a cause in which a jury had been waived but only a general finding for the interveners, it was not within the power of the court in a law case to consider the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding. It therefore affirmed the judgment of the District Court. A certiorari brings the case here for consideration.
Mr. F. W. Lehmann, of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.
Mr. John J. Jones, of Kansas City, Mo., for respondents.
Mr. Chief Justice TAFT, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the Court.
We differ with the Circuit Court of Appeals in its holding that, as brought in review before it, this cause was an action at law. We think the cause was then equitable, and the proper review was by appeal. The case began as an action at law for money had and received. When the defendant bank claimed to be only a stakeholder of the deposit, disclaimed interest therein, and offered to pay it into court, and asked that the other claimants of the fund be made parties, its answer and cross-petition became an equitable defense and a prayer for affirmative equitable relief in the nature of a bill for interpleader. Section 274b of the Judicial Code, as amended by Act of March 3, 1915, c. 90, 38 Stat. 956 (Comp. St. § 1251b), provides:
'That in all actions at law equitable defenses may be interposed by answer, plea, or replication without the necessity of filing a bill on the equity side of the court. The defendant shall have the same rights in such case as if he had filed a bill embodying the defense of seeking the relief prayed for in such answer or plea. Equitable relief respecting the subject matter of the suit may thus be obtained by answer or plea. In case affirmative relief is prayed in such answer or plea, the plaintiff shall file a replication. Review of the judgment or decree entered in such case shall be regulated by rule of court. Whether such review be sought by writ of error or by appeal the appellate court shall have full power to render such judgment upon the records as law and justice shall require.'
This section applies to the case before us. The proceeding was changed by defendant's answer and cross-petition from one at law to one in equity with all the consequences flowing therefrom. The better practice would perhaps have been, on the defendant's filing its answer and cross-petition, to order the cause transferred to the equity side of the court. Under equity rule No. 22 (33 Sup. Ct. xxiv), a suit in equity which should have been brought at law must be transferred to the law side of the court. There is no corresponding provision in rule or statute which expressly directs this to be done when the action begun at law should have been by a bill on the equity side, but we think the power of the trial court to order a transfer in a case like this is implied from the broad language of section 274b, above quoted, by which the defendant who files an equitable defense is to be given the same rights as if he had set them up in a bill in equity, and from section 274a of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1251a), quoted below, in which the court is directed, when a suit at law should have been brought in equity, to order amendments to the pleadings necessary to confrom them to the proper practice. Webb v. Southern Ry. Co. (D. C.) 235 Fed. 578, 593, 594. We are aware that a different conclusion has been reached by the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit in Waldo et al. v. Wilson, 231 Fed. 654, 145 C. C. A. 540, but for the reasons stated, and after a full examination of that case, we think the conclusion of that court upon this point was too narrow.
Nor, by the failure to order the transfer in this case, did the suit lose the equitable character it had taken on by the answer and cross-petition of the defendant. The situation thus produced was quite like that under state Civil Codes of Procedure in which there is but one form of civil action, the formal distinction between proceedings in law and equity is abolished, and remedies at law and in equity are available to the parties in the same court and the same cause. Neither legal nor equitable remedies are abolished under such Codes.
'What was an action at law before the Code is still an action founded on legal principles; and what was a bill in equity before the Code is still a civil action founded on principles of equity.' Sutherland on Code Pleading Practice and Forms, § 87; De Witt v. Hays, 2 Cal. 464, 56 Am. Dec. 352; Smith v. Rowe, 4 Cal. 6; Howard v. Tiffany, 5 N. Y. Super. Ct. 695.
Section 274b is an important step toward a consolidation of the federal courts of law and equity, and the questions presented in this union are to be solved much as they have been under the state Codes. United States v. Richardson, 223 Fed. 1010, 1013, 139 C. C. A. 386. The most important limitation upon a federal union of the two kinds of remedies in one form of action is the requirement of the Constitution in the Seventh Amendment that:
'In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.'
Where an equitable defense is interposed to a suit at law, the equitable issue raised should first be disposed of as in a court of equity, and then, if an issue at law remains, it is triable to a jury. Massie v. Stradford, 17 Ohio St. 596; Dodsworth v. Hopple, 33 Ohio St. 16, 18; Taylor v. Brick Co., 66 Ohio St. 360, 366, 64 N. E. 428; Sutherland Code Pl. and Pr. § 1157. The equitable defense makes the issue equitable, and it is to be tried to the judge as a chancellor. The right of trial by jury is preserved exactly as it was at common law. The same order is preserved as under the system of separate courts. If a defendant at law had an equitable defense, he resorted to a bill in equity to enjoin the suit at law, until he could make his equitable defense effective by a hearing before the chancellor. The hearing on that bill was before the chancellor, and not before a jury, and, if the prayer of the bill was granted, the injunction against the sutit at law was made perpetual, and no jury trial ensued. If the injunction was denied, the suit at law proceeded to verdict and judgment. This was the practice in the courts of law and chancery in England when our Constitution and the Seventh Amendment were adopted, and it is in the light of such practice that the Seventh Amendment is to be construed.
Congress, we think, was looking toward such a union of laws and equity actions in the enactment of section 274b quoted above, and of section 274a, which, referring to courts of the United States, provides:
'That in case any of said courts shall find that a suit at law should have been brought in equity or a suit in equity should have been brought at law, the court shall order any amendments to the pleadings which may be necessary to conform them to the proper practice. Any party to the suit shall have the right, at any stage of the cause, to amend his pleadings so as to obviate the objection that his suit was not brought on the right side of the court. The cause shall proceed and be determined upon such amended pleadings. All testimony taken before such amendment, if preserved, shall stand as testimony in the cause with like effect as if the pleadings had been originally in the amended form.'
To be sure, these sections do not create one form of civil action as do the Codes of Procedure in the states, but they manifest a purpose on the part of Congress to change from a suit at law to one in equity and the reverse with as little delay and as little insistence on form as possible, and are long steps toward Code practice.
Coming now to apply those two sections thus construed to the case before us, we find that by defendant's answer and the court's order it became a bill of interpleader in equity. Thereafter the proceedings should have been so treated, both in the trial and appellate courts. The chancellor having sustained a bill of interpleader, disposed of the controversy between the claimants by directing any method of trial which would best and expeditiously accomplish justice in the particular case. State Insurance Co. v. Gennett, 2 Tenn. Ch. 100, 101; Rowe v. Hoagland's Adm'rs, 7 N. J. Eq. 131; Condict's Ex'rs v. King, 13 N. J. Eq. 375, 383; City Bank v. Bangs, 2 Paige, Ch. (N. Y.) 570, 573; Gibson v. Goldthwaite, 7 Ala. 281, 290, 42 Am. Dec. 592; Angell v. Hadden, 16 Vesey, 202; Kirtland v. Moore, 40 N. J. Eq. 106, 108, 2 Atl. 269; 2 Daniell's Ch. Practice (6th Am. Ed.) 1568, 1569. This well-established rule takes the issue here to be tried out of that class of issues in which there must have been a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. Where it was one which the chancellor could readily dispose of in one proceeding, it was in the interest of economy of expedition, and of justice that he should do so. This is in accord with the general rule in equity embodied in equity rule 23 (33 Sup. Ct. xxiv) that jurisdiction once assumed should be maintained to end the litigation. Greene v. Louisville & Interurban R. R. Co., 244 U. S. 499, 520, 37 Sup. Ct. 673, 61 L. Ed. 1280, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 88; McGowan v. Parish, 237 U. S. 285, 296, 35 Sup. Ct. 543, 59 L. Ed. 955; Camp v. Boyd, 229 U. S. 530, 551, 552, 33 Sup. Ct. 785, 57 L. Ed. 1317.
It was therefore error by the Circuit Court of Appeals to proceed as if it were reviewing a judgment in a suit at law upon a bill of exceptions. It is true that the record contained a bill of exceptions, but there was also a transcript of the same evidence certified as required in appeals in equity. The plaintiff below was evidently not certain of the proper practice and prepared for either writ of error or appeal. Under section 269 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 26, 1919, c. 48, 40 Stat. 1181 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 1246), appellate courts are enjoined to give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to techical errors, defects or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties; and under section 274b, whether the review is sought by writ of error or appeal, the appellate court is given full power to render such judgment upon the record as law and justice shall require. It follows that the court should have considered the issue of law and fact upon which the decree of the District Court depended; that is, whether there was a good and marketable title.
On this review by certiorari, we could consider and decide the issue which the Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously refused to consider. On such an issue alone, however, we would not have granted the writ, because, except for the important question of practice, the case was not of sufficient public interest to justify it. We think it better, therefore, to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals, and to remand the case to that court for consideration and decision of the issues of fact and law in this case as on an appeal in equity.


text:
Weaving White Sale!
I have always loved a White Sale–that January staple where you can load up on all the things that you need for your house but never seem to buy during the rest of the year. This year WEBS is holding our version of a White Sale, a Weaving promotion that is too good not to take advantage of.
From January 22 through January 29, customers who buy 3 cones of Valley 8/2 Cotton or Valley 6/2 Cotton will receive a free download of our new weaving eBook, Favorite Five Dish Towels. The best part, for all of our readers and customers, is that the White Sale will be online as well as in-store! We've included some very well-loved drafts as well as a few newbies, and a bonus small dish cloth is yours as well.
The drafts are written for both 4-shaft as well as 8-shaft looms, and they all work well for both 8/2 and 6/2 cotton. You'll be able to make Carol Birtwistle's sprightly Ribbon Towels, Chris Hammel's beautiful and evocative Garden Towel with either a summer or winter weave structure, two of Barbara Elkin's designs, the Modified Star Work dish towel and the Waffle Weave Buddies, as well as a new draft, the Crepe Towel. Your bonus, the Petite Dish Cloth, is a tiny work of art, and would be perfect as a housewarming gift along with some handmade soaps and a lovely soap dish.
It's not often that you get to make your own White Sale! Let us know your color choices and the delighted reactions you see if you decide to bestow one of these designs on a deserving friend for the bleak midwinter.
- 2019 Capstone Graduation Wrap-Up - June 27, 2019
- Class of 2018 Capstone Graduation - June 26, 2018
- WEBS Expert Knitter Certification Capstone Graduation 2017 - July 10, 2017
Tags: ebook, Five Favorite Dish Towels, Valley 6/2 Cotton, Valley 8/2 Cotton, weaving, weaving draft, weaving drafts, Weaving eBook, weaving promotion, White Sale

subset: commoncrawl


text:
London (CNN) -- The biggest fashion show on earth, the royal wedding, got underway in a riot of bright colors, flamboyant fascinators and larger-than-life hats.
The Queen cut a particularly cheerful figure in a primrose-yellow double crepe wool coat and matching wool dress by Angela Kelly, with hand-sown beading at the neck in the shape of sunrays.
Mother-of-the-bride Carole Middleton's outfit was hotly anticipated, after she reportedly rejected the outfit specially made for her by leading British couturier Lindka Cierach at the eleventh hour. On the day, she opted for an elegant and subtle number from tried-and-trusted couturier Catherine Walker, a French-born designer based in London who was a favorite with Princess Diana.
Walker created a sky-blue wool crepe coatdress for her, with matching satin piping and trimming at the waist and cuff, worn over a sky-blue silk shantung "Sydney" day dress with short pleated sleeves and pockets. Mrs. Middleton's hat was by Berkshire-based Jane Corbett.
Gallery: What the royal wedding guests wore
The Duchess of Cornwall stayed loyal to designer Anna Valentine -- the woman who designed her wedding outfits and is credited with revamping her image. She wore a champagne silk dress and a duck-egg blue and champagne coat with hand-embroidered detailing, teamed with a hat by her favorite milliner, Philip Treacy, and shoes by Jimmy Choo.
Queen of fashion Victoria Beckham made an elegant arrival dressed in one of her own autumn/winter creations, specially altered to take account of her baby bump. She cut a demure figure in the knee-length navy number, matched with a pillbox Philip Treacy hat adorned with gravity-defying embellishments, her hair slicked back in a ponytail.
Her husband David played it safe in a grey tie and morning suit by Ralph Lauren. He carried a top hat and sported his Order of the British Empire medal -- as well as his trademark designer stubble.
Other guests arriving at Westminster Abbey for Prince William and Kate Middleton's wedding were more colorful, with bright blues, pinks, yellows and greens scattered throughout the crowd.
Chelsy Davy, Prince Harry's on-off girlfriend, set off her blonde good looks in a glamorous off-the-shoulder turquoise two-piece, with a playful bow on the back.
The Queen's granddaughter Princess Eugenie wore a less successful aqua-blue number and small feathered hat, while sister Beatrice went for a summery pale peach, teamed with a statement hat.
Hats were the big talking point of the day, as many guests jazzed up their formal outfits with creations by milliner-to-the-stars Philip Treacy.
Tara Palmer-Tomkinson, socialite and friend of Prince Charles, sported a bright royal blue dress and matching daring teardrop-shaped pillbox hat by British designer Stephen Jones.
Meanwhile, Elton John put aside his normally flamboyant style, wearing a bespoke black morning suit brightened only by a cream waistcoat and purple tie.
Not to be outdone by the celebrities, British politicians' wives showed off their fashion credentials on the Westminster Abbey red carpet.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's wife, Miriam Gonzalez Durantez, won the vote for most eye-popping headwear, with an enormous exotic red creation topping off a bizarre metallic and black-gauze dress.
Prime Minister David Cameron's wife, Samantha Cameron -- known for her good fashion sense -- eschewed a hat for a feathery barrette teamed with a short-sleeved, figure-hugging teal-green number.
The prize for bravery, however, went to Foreign Secretary William Hague's wife Ffion, who turned up looking elegant despite being in a wheelchair, following a recent fall that left her with a broken shin.


text:
2. Just consequence from Scripture giveth us another ground for the assembly of many Churches, or of their messengers, into a Synod, when any Church lyeth under scandall, through corruption in doctrine and practice, and will not be healed by more private advertisements of their own members, or of their neighbour Ministers, or Brethren. For there is a brotherly communion, as between the members, of the same Church, so between the Churches. We have a little sister, (saith one Church to another, Cant.8.8.) therefore Churches have a brotherly communion amongst themselves. Look then as one brother being offened with another, and not able to heal him by the mouth of two or three brethren privately, it behooveth him to carry it to the whole church so by -proportion, if one Church see matter of offence in another, and be hot able to heal it in a more private way, it will behove them to procure the Assembly of many churches, that the offence may be orderly heard, and judged, and removed.
3. It may so fall out that the state of all the churches in the countrey may be corrupted and beginning to discern their corruption, may desire the concurse and counsell one of another, for a speedy, and safe, and generall reformation. And Then so meeting and conferring together, may renew their covenant with God, and conclude and determine upon a course, that may tend to the publike healing, and salvation of them all. This was a frequent practice in the Old Testament in the time of Asa, 2 Chron.15.10 to 15, in the time of Hezekiah, 2 Chron.29.4 to 19. In the time of Josiah, 2 Chron.34.29 to 33, and in the time of Ezra, Ezra 10.1 to 5. These and the like examples were not peculiar to the Israelites as one intire nationall Church: For in that respect they appealed from every Synagogue and Court in Israel to the nationall high Priest, and Court at Jerusalem, as being all of them subordinate thereunto (and therefore that precedent is usually waved by our best Divines, as not appliable to Christian churches;) but these examples hold forth no superiority in one church or court over another, but all of them in an equall manner, give advice in common, and take one common course for redresse of all. And therefore such examples are fit precedents for churches of equall power within themselves, to assemble together, and take order with one accord, for the reformation of them all.
Now a Synod being assembled; three questions arise about their power: 1. What is that power they have received? 2. How far the fraternity concurreth with the Presbyterie in it; the brotherhood with the Eldership? 3. Whether the power they have received reacheth to the injoyning of things, both in their nature, and in their use indifferent?
For the first: we dare not say that their power reacheth no farther then giving counsell; for such as their ends be, for which according to God, they do assemble, such is the power given them of God, as may attain those ends. As they meet to minister light and peace to such churches, as through want of light and peace lye in error (or doubt at least) and variance; so they have power by the grace of Christ, not only to give light and counsell in matter of Truth and Practice; but also to command and enjoyn the things to be believed and done. The expresse words of the Synodall letter imply no lesse; It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and unto us, to lay upon you no other burthen, Act.15, 27. This burthen therefore, to observe those necessary things which they speak of, they had power to impose. It is an act of the binding power of the keys, to bind burthens. And this binding power ariseth not only materially from the weight of the matters imposed, (which are necessary necessitate præcepti from the word) but also formally, from the authority of the Synod, which being an Ordinance of Christ, bindeth the more for the Synods sake. As a truth of the Gospel taught by a Minister of the Gospel, it bindeth to faith and obedience, not only. because it is the Gospel, but also because it is taught by a Minister for his callings sake, seeing Christ hath said, Whoso receiveth you receiveth me. And seeing also a Synod sometime meeteth to convince, and admonish an offending Church or Presbyterie; they have power therefore, (if they cannot heal the offenders) to determine to withdraw communion from them. And further, seeing they meet likewise sometimes for generall information; they have power to decree and publish such Ordinances, as may conduce according to God, unto such reformation: Examples whereof wee read, Neh.10.32. to 39.2 Chron.15.12.13.
For the second question; How far the Fraternity, or the Brethren of the Church, may concurre with the Elders in exercising the power of the Synod?
The Answer is; The power which they have received is a power of liberty: As 1. They have liberty to dispute their doubts modestly and Christianly amongst the Elders: For in that Synod at Jerusalem, as there was much disputation, Act 15.7. so the multitude had a part in the Disputation v.12. For after Peters speech, it is said, the whole multitude kept silence, and silence from what? to wit, from the speech last in hand amongst them, and that was from Disputation.2. The Brethren of the church had liberty to joyn with the Apostles and Elders, in approving the sentence of James & determining the same as the common sentence of them all.3. They bad liberty to joyn with the Apostles and Elders in choosing and sending messengers, and in writing Synodall letters in the names of all, for the publishing of the sentence of the Synod. Both these points are expressed in the text v.22.23. to 29. Then pleased it the Apostles and Elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men, and to write Letters by them. See the whole church distinguished from the Apostles and Elders; and those whom he called the whole Church v.22. he calleth the Brethren v.23. The Apostles, and Elders, and Brethren, &c.
But though it may not be denyed, that the Brethren of the Church present in the Synod, had all this power of liberty, to joyn with the Apostles and Elders in all these acts of the Synod; yet the authority of the Decrees lay chiefly (if not only) in the Apostles and Elders. And therefore it is said, Acts 16.4, That Paul and Silas delivered to the Churches for to keep the Decrees that were ordained of the Apostles and Elders; So then it will be most safe to preserve to the Church of Brethren their due liberties, and to reserve to the Elders their due authority.
If it be said, The Elders assembled in a Synod, have no authority to determine or conclude any act that shall binde the Churches, but according to the instructions which before they have received from the Churches.
Answ. Wee do not so apprehend it For what need Churches sent to a Synod for light and direction in ways of truth and peace, if they be resolved afore-hand how far they will go? It is true if the Elders of Churches shall conclude in a Synod any thing prejudiciall to the truth and peace of the Gospel, they may justly expostulate with them at their return, and refuse such sanctions as the Lord hath not sanctioned. But if the Elders be gathered in the name of Christ in a Synod, and proceed according to the rule, (the word) of Christ, they may consider and conclude sundry points expedient for thee state of their Churches, which the Churches were either ignorant or doubtful of before.
As for the third Question, whether the Synod have power to injoyn such things as are both in their nature and their use indifferent? We should answer it negatively, and our reasons be:
1. From the pattern of that precedent of Synods, Act.15.18. They laid upon the Churches no other burthen, but those necessary things necessary, though not all of them in their own nature, yet for present use, to avoid the offence both of Jew and Gentile: of the Jew by eating things strangled and blood; of the Gentile and Jew both, by eating things sacrificed to idols, as Paul expoundeth that Article of the Synod, 1 Cor.220.127.116.11. and Chap.10.28. This eating with offence was a murther of a weak brothers soule, and a sin against Christ.1 Cor.8.11.12. and therefore necessary to be forborn, necessitate præcepti, by the necessity of Gods Commandment.
2. A second reason may be from the latitude of the Apostolicall commission, which was given to them, Mat.28.19.20. where the Apostles are commanded to teach the people to observe all things which Christ hath commanded. If then the Apostles teach the people to observe more then Christ hath commanded, they go beyond the bounds of their commission, and a larger commission then that given to the Apostles, nor Elders, nor Synods, nor Churches can challenge.
If it be said, Christ speaketh only of teaching such things which he had commanded as necessary to salvation.
Answ. If the. Apostles or their successors should hereupon usurpe an authority to teach the people things indifferent, they must plead this their authority from some other commission given them elsewhere: for in this place there is no foot-step for any such power. That much urged, and much abused place in 1 Cor.14.40 will not reach it. For though Paul requiring in that place, all the duties of Gods worship, whether Prayer or Prophesying, or Psalmes, or Tongues, &c. that they should be performed decently and orderly, he thereby forbiddeth any performance thereof undecently; as for men with long hayre, and women to speak in open assemblies, especially to pray with their hair loose about them. And though he forbiddeth also men speaking two or three at once, which to do, were not order, but confusion; yet he doth not at all, neither himself injoyn, nor allow the Church of Corinth to injoyn such things as decent, whose want, or whose contrary is not undecent; nor such orders, whose want or contrary would be no disorder. Suppose the Church of Corinth (or any other Church or Synod) should enjoyn their Ministers to preach in a gown. A gown is a decent garment to preach in: Yet such an Injunction is not grounded upon that Text of the Apostle. For then a Minister in neglecting to preach in a gown, should neglect the commandment of the Apostle, which yet indeed he doth not. For if he preach in a cloak, he preacheth decently enough, and that is which the Apostles Canon reacheth to. In these things Christ never provided for uniformitie, but onely for unity.
For a third reason of this point, (and to adde no more) it is taken from the nature of the Ministeriall office, whether in a Church or Synod. Their office is stewardly, not lordly: they are Embassadours from Christ, and for Christ. Of a steward it is required he be found faithfull 1 Cor.4.1.2. and therefore he may dispense no more injunctions to Gods house, then Christ hath appointed him: Neither may an Embassadour proceed to do, any act of his office, further then what he hath received in his Commission from his Prince. If he go further, he maketh himself a Prævaricator, not an Embassadour.
But if it be enquired, Whether a Synod hath power of Ordination, and Excommunication; we would not take upon us hastily to censure the many notable precedents of ancient and later Synods, who have put forth acts of power in both these kinds. Onely we doubt that from the beginning it was not so: and for our own parts, if any occasion of using this power should arise amongst ourselves (which hitherto through preventing mercie it hath not) we (in a Synod) should rather chuse to determine, and to publish and declare our determination. That the ordination of such as we find fit for it, and the excommunication of such as we find do deserve it, would be an acceptable service both to the Lord, and to his Churches but the administration of both these acts we should refer to the Presbyterie of the severall Churches, whereto the person to be ordained is called, and whereof the person to be excommunicate is a member: and both acts to be performed in the presence, and with the consent of the several! Churches, to whom the matter appertaineth. For in the beginning of the Gospel in that precedent of Synods, Act.15. we find the false teachers declared to be disturbers and troublers of the Churches, and subverters of their souls, Act.15.24. but no condigne censure dispensed against them by the Synod. An evident argument to us, that they left the censure of such offenders (in case they repented not) to the particular Churches, to whom they did appertain. And for Synodical! ordination, although Act.1. be alledged, where Matthias was called to be an Apostle, yet it doth not appear that they acted then in a Synodicall way: no more then the Church of Antioch did, when with fasting and prayer they by their Presbyters imposed hands on Paul and Barnabas, and thereby separated them to the work of the Apostleship, whereto the Holy Ghost had called them, Act.18.104.22.168. Whence as the Holy Ghost then said, Aphorisate de' moi ton te Barna'ban kai to`n Saulon so therefore Paul styleth himself Apo'stolos aphorisme'nos, Rom.1.1. And this was done in a particular Church, not in a Synod.


text:
For listeners of this show a complimentary 15 minute financial coaching and strategy session is available by calling Eric at 941.713.9307 or email at firstname.lastname@example.com - just let him know you heard about The Financial Independence Project on today's show.
The Financial Independence Project
Eric - 941.713.9307
Here is the show link for the 6th September 2014: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/matrixfile ... on-berkley
I will go over last weeks nuggets of gold before getting into this weeks show.
Today we were scheduled to have Carlton Berkley, an ex-NY police detective, on as a guest. Unfortunately there was an incident on Thursday where someone left a dead rat on the hood of his car. The media were all over the story this Saturday (the 6th) and he was scheduled to be interviewed around the time he was to be on my show. It was agreed that he would come on the show next week.
To fill in for Carlton I invited my friend Jerry F. Kirk onto the show and he was able to graciously put aside the time to come and talk about his Notorious Declaration that he first created back in 1987. A Notorious Declaration is what the legal term is for the Declaration of Independence.
Jerry also talks about jurisdiction, and the laws he follows according to the Father in Heaven.
Nuggets of Gold
- If you have Assistance of Counsel it means you have a say in the case and how it is run. When you are represented by a lawyer you have no say in what happens with the case and in what direction it goes.
- La Dietus - A Man (or Woman) created by the Creator.
- What scares government is the ability of an individual to place his immortal life before his physical life.
- One must put one's intent down on paper and file it into the county recorders office or equivalent.
- Prior to the KJV of the bible there was no discussion of property, only duties and responsibilities (Geneva Bible)
- God is spelt dog backwards.
- Language used to be read from right to left.
- Sulphur, a naturally occurring mineral, was used a long time ago to keep infections out of the body. Sulphur was in the water.


text:
Lesson 10 in the series He Gave Us Scripture: Foundations of Interpretation
Looks at how the cultural dimensions of Scripture affects our application of the Bible to the modern world.
At one time or another, everyone teaching the Bible has heard someone ask, "Isn't this part of the Bible just cultural?" What they usually mean is that some portions of Scripture are so embedded in the ancient cultures of biblical times that they can't possibly apply to us today. So, Christians often spend a lot of time trying to distinguish between "cultural" biblical passages and passages that apply to modern life.
In this lesson, we're going to propose a different outlook. Rather than treating parts of Scripture as either cultural or applicable, we'll see that every portion of the Bible is both cultural and applicable. The entire Bible reflects the ancient cultural context, but it still is God's Word to be applied in one way or another to everyone, no matter who we are, or where or when we live.
This is the tenth lesson in our series He Gave Us Scripture: Foundations of Interpretation, and we've entitled it "Biblical Culture and Modern Application." In this lesson, we'll see how the cultural dimensions of Scripture should affect our application of the Bible to the modern world.
As we've said in earlier lessons, whenever we apply biblical passages in our day, we must take into account the epochal, cultural and personal distance between the original audiences of Scripture and modern audiences. Although these three considerations can't be entirely separated from each other, we're going to focus especially on the cultural issues that come into play as we move from the original meaning of Scripture to modern application.
There are many ways to define culture. But following outlooks that typically appear in modern sociology and anthropology, we'll define culture as:
The intersecting patterns of concepts, behaviors and emotions that characterize a community.
As this definition suggests, cultures involve a spectrum of intersecting patterns such as language, the arts, worship, technology, interpersonal relations and social authority. And these intersecting patterns consist of shared concepts, behaviors and emotions — what we believe, do and feel. So, when we speak of cultures, we have in mind how these features characterize a community — whether it be a family, an ethnic group, a social organization, a religious association, a nation, or even the entire human race.
This lesson will focus on three dimensions of biblical culture and modern application: first, we'll examine the biblical foundations of culture found in the early chapters of the Bible. Second, we'll trace a number of biblical developments of culture that took place in the Old and New Testaments. And third, we'll see how these cultural aspects of the Bible should affect our modern application of Scripture. Let's look first at the biblical foundations of culture.
As we consider the biblical foundations of culture, we'll begin by exploring Genesis 1–11. First, we'll see how these chapters establish the importance of culture. Second, we'll focus on how they introduce two opposing cultural ideals. And third, we'll notice how the opening chapters of Scripture set the stage for cultural variety among God's faithful servants. Let's begin with the importance of culture.
The first eleven chapters of Genesis cover the whole history of the world from creation to the days of Abraham. They're particularly important to our study because they lay out God's ideal patterns for the world and human culture. In this way, they guide our reading not only of the rest of Genesis, but also of the rest of Scripture.
The foundations of culture first appear in Genesis 1:28, a passage often called the "cultural mandate." Here, God told humanity:
Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground (Genesis 1:28).
To understand and apply the significance of the cultural mandate, we need to remember something we've seen in earlier lessons. God's final goal for history has always been to fill the world with his visible glory so that every creature will worship him forever. And after God established the initial order of creation, the cultural mandate indicated that humanity's responsibility was to develop the creation further in preparation for the final display of God's glory.
God gave humanity the cultural mandate in the most simple terms so that the world, the creation would be filled with his glory. We see a picture of creation as being something like the construction of a house, sort of like an ancient temple. And when a temple is built, the god who commissioned its building inhabits it. And so, the biblical view of creation is that the whole earth was made to be a dwelling place for God, to be a holy sanctuary. But instead of a statue representing God — a statue of a bird or a lion or something like that being placed in that temple — God placed man and woman as his image bearers. And in giving the cultural mandate, God was in effect saying, "Go multiply my image, fill the earth, and then bring it under dominion, exercise authority over it like it a priest." And so, the cultural mandate was so that God's image bearers would go exercise God's lordship over the created world so that the earth would be a dwelling place for the God who made it, just like his heavenly throne room, glimpses of which we see in places like Isaiah 6, the earth was to be the same. And so it's not a new thing for, for instance, the Old Testament to tell us that the earth will be full of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea, because that was God's original design for it. [Rev. Mike Glodo]
Right there at the beginning of the Bible in Genesis 1, before the Fall, God gives a very important mandate or set of instructions — really, a worldview we'd almost say — to Adam and Eve, and that is to take the beauty of the Garden and the order and the excellence of it and to spread that throughout the world. And the story of the Bible is very much about the Fall and the failure to do so, and then the restarting of that very mandate through the second Adam and his bride, the church, Jesus Christ. And so that cultural mandate, that creational mandate, that original ordinance from Genesis 1, is really at the core of the Bible's message, and, I would suggest, is really very much what redemption is about. One scholar has called redemption "creation regained." And I think that's a beautiful image. It's a beautiful comprehensive understanding of what the Bible is about. I've often described the message of the Bible as God restoring his reign, or his kingdom, from heaven to earth, from creation to new creation. And that traffics in these two poles, these two axes, of God bringing the heavenly realities to become fully, full-born earthly realities, and also give the temporal sense of God working from creation to the end-goal of new creation. And at the heart of that is the idea that God is spreading his beauty, his excellence, or to use more biblical language, "his glory" throughout all the earth. And that is the calling of all humans as individuals as well as redeemed humanity in God's church. [Dr. Jonathan T. Pennington]
We can see this in Genesis 1:26, where God said, "Let us make man in our image." In the ancient world, kings of nations were called images of god, in part because their royal task was to determine the will of their gods and build their cultures accordingly. In this light, the early chapters of Genesis make it clear that all human beings were created to perform this kind of royal cultural service to further God's will on earth.
In addition, Genesis 2 explains that every cultural development in accordance with God's will is a sacred priestly service to God. In verse 15 we learn that God put Adam and Eve in his sacred garden "to work it and take care of it." This expression is an unusual combination of two Hebrew verbs: avad, usually translated "to work" or "to labor," and shamar, normally translated "to take care of" or "to protect." Moses used these terms together only one other time — in Numbers 3:8 when he described the service of Levitical priests before God's glorious presence in the Tabernacle.
So, in effect, the opening chapters of Genesis establish the foundational biblical perspective that culture is not some minor dimension of our existence. Rather, it is our royal and priestly service to God. God has ordained for us to fill, develop, order, beautify, and sanctify the earth in preparation for the final display of his visible glory.
I think to understand why God gave man the cultural mandate, it's important to remember that man was uniquely created in his own image. So there's a structural component to the divine image — we just are in God's image. But then there's also the functional component, that we show and display the glory of God in the particular way that's just right for us being human by the way that we carry out and reflect his glory through the work that we do. And so when we think about the cultural mandate, we have sort of a work to fill the earth and to subdue it, to make the world like Eden, like the Garden, and so on, but also to fill it, to populate it. And so the idea is that we are to carry out the cultural mandate to spread the glory of God displayed uniquely in his divine image in human form to the ends of the earth for his own glory. [Dr. Bruce Baugus]
Now that we've seen the biblical foundations of the importance of culture, we should take up a second issue: the biblical foundations of two opposing cultural ideals pursued by human beings throughout history.
When we travel to different parts of the world, we're right to remind ourselves that there's a lot of room for people to do things in different ways. We don't all need to drive on the same side of the street, speak the same language, or wear the same kinds of clothes. Still, the opening chapters of Genesis make it clear that culture is never morally neutral. On the contrary, in one way or another every development of every culture either displeases or pleases God as it reflects one of two opposing cultural ideals.
Biblical authors were well aware that human beings developed culture in many ways. But from their point of view, all cultures fell into one of two basic categories: cultural patterns that served God and cultural patterns that opposed him.
As we'll see later, these cultural distinctions become very important when we apply the Bible today. But for now, let's consider how this division was first established in the earliest chapters of the Bible.
In Genesis 3, Adam and Eve failed their test of loyalty to God by eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. After this, God revealed that their fall into sin would lead human beings to follow two distinct cultural paths. Listen to the way God described these two cultural pursuits in Genesis 3:15 when he said to the Serpent:
I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel (Genesis 3:15).
In brief, "the woman" mentioned here is Eve, the first woman God created, and the Serpent is Satan.
This passage establishes the division that's characterized human culture throughout history. The woman's offspring have sought to serve God faithfully. And the Serpent's offspring have sought to oppose him. And this division will continue to characterize human culture until Christ, the great offspring of Eve, returns to complete his final victory over Satan.
These two paths immediately appear in the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4. Near the end of chapter 4, we see how Cain and his descendants lived as the offspring of the Serpent. They formed highly sophisticated cultures, but with the intention of resisting the will of God and exchanging their natural ancestry for the Evil One as their spiritual father.
But in Genesis 5 we find a record of Seth's descendants who developed culture as the offspring of the woman. They formed families and tribes. They developed religious practices and language. They weren't perfect, but they did their best to establish cultural patterns that served and glorified God. From this point forward, the Scriptures continue to distinguish these two opposing cultural ideals.
Now, we have to be careful here. To interpret and apply Scripture, we also have to see that there were many similarities between these two paths of human culture. Genesis 4 and 5 indicate that Cain and Abel both sought to subdue nature. They both developed societies and religious practices. And, as the genealogies of Seth and Cain demonstrate, both lines married and had children.
How was it possible for people following such different cultural ideals to develop such similar expressions of culture? From the rest of Scripture we learn that these similarities appeared for two reasons.
On the one side, God's common grace, his non-saving mercy toward humanity, restrains Satan and the sinful propensities of those who follow him. And as a result, even the most diabolical cultures in the world have exhibited a degree of conformity to God's will. On the other side, sin continues to corrupt those who pursue the ways of God. So, even the holiest cultures in the world have failed to adhere perfectly to God's will.
From the time of Cain and Abel until our own day, there have always been both differences and similarities between the cultural efforts of God's faithful servants and of those who rebel against him. And as we seek to apply any passage of Scripture today, it's important to keep in mind these cultural distinctions.
Having explored the biblical foundations of the importance of culture, and the establishment of two opposing cultural ideals, we can now turn to a third factor: God's approval of cultural variety in the opening chapters of Scripture.
The first chapters of Genesis deal primarily with a few individual human beings. So, there are no examples of communities displaying cultural variety in this part of the Bible. Even so, God set the stage for cultural variety in the first chapters of Genesis in the ways he revealed his will to individual people in early human history.
There are many ways to describe the foundations of cultural variety, but for the sake of time we'll consider how cultural variety developed through "special revelation" and what we commonly call "general revelation."
"Special revelation" is the term traditional theologians use to signify God's disclosures of himself and his will to a select number of people through dreams, visions, prophets, the Scriptures, and other similar means. For example, in the early chapters of Genesis, God verbally revealed himself to Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Noah.
On the other hand, "general revelation" refers to God's disclosures of himself and his will in all of creation, both in people — human personalities, physical and spiritual abilities, and other qualities — and in circumstances — in the external, observable world. We see this in passages like Psalm 19 and Romans 1:18-20.
God's use of special and general revelation helps us understand how God set the stage for cultural variety among his people.
We see this in the way God's faithful people obeyed the same special revelation in different ways, even at the same time, because they were different people facing different circumstances. For instance, Adam and Eve received the special revelation of the cultural mandate in Genesis 1:28. But Adam and Eve had different talents, personalities, physical abilities and the like. They also dealt with different personal circumstances. To whatever degree these varieties appeared between them, Adam and Eve had to apply the special revelation of the cultural mandate to their lives in different ways at the same time.
In addition, humanity often applied the same special revelation in a variety of ways over time because of ongoing changes in the people and circumstances involved. As just one example, when God first gave the cultural mandate, sin hadn't entered the world. But after Adam and Eve rebelled against God, they and their circumstances changed, and as a result, the way they obeyed the cultural mandate also changed. In fact, special revelation in Genesis 3 revealed how pain and futility would complicate the fulfillment of the cultural mandate as time and humanity progressed.
We can see that the same kinds of variety appear again and again as God added one special revelation after another over time. To one degree or another, every new special revelation modified the requirements of earlier special revelations. So, every time God gave new special revelations, his faithful people had to respond by changing how they served him both at the same time and over time.
From the very beginning, special and general revelations led to all kinds of variety in the ways early human beings were to serve God. And as we'll see later in this lesson, this initial variety laid the foundations of cultural variety for communities of God's faithful people throughout biblical history and even today.
The cultural mandate in Genesis requires us to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, and take dominion over it. That's going to lead to cultural variety. And the question can arise, is that really part of God's design? Does God intend for there to be diversity among different cultures? And I would say that the teaching of Scripture is, yes, absolutely. This is an outworking of what God calls us to begin to do… He created us in an environment that is just shot through with his desire for diversity: There's not just dry land, there's also sea. There's not just sun, there's also other kinds of stars. There are not just birds, there are animals of all types. And there's not just one kind of being human, there is male and female. So as we extend the image of that God who has created in this way throughout all of his creation, surely we ought to mirror that kind of variety, and that's going to show up in different cultural practices and things. See, I think the other thing we'd say there is that God calls us to fill the whole earth with his glory, and as we do that, we're going to run into things like variety of climate, variety of terrain. You can't very well build an igloo at the equator, and grass huts won't work in Alaska. So, as we fill the whole earth and take dominion over the whole earth, there is naturally going to be this kind of variety that we see reflected when Revelation says that in the company of the redeemed will be people from every tribe and language and tongue and nation. That is not a departure from God's intention from the beginning. That's actually the fulfillment of what God commanded in Genesis 1. [Dr. Jimmy Agan]
I think part of the beauty of God's working in the world is he's not working only in one culture but in and through many cultures. And I think we have a lot of affirmation of that in the Bible. The proclamation of the gospel is for all nations, that is, all the ethnicities, all the people groups of the world. And when you get to the end of Revelation, the Scripture talks about the kings of the earth bringing their glory into the kingdom of God; all of these treasures of different cultures and the unique strengths and gifts that we see worked out in various cultures of the world, these are all things that God uses in a redemptive way that are part of his purposes for humanity. And that's one of the reasons I think it's so important for us to have relationships across cultures in the body of Christ so that we can benefit from the full riches of God's work through the different cultures of the world. [Dr. Philip Ryken]
To explore biblical culture and its relationship to modern application, we need to keep not only the biblical foundations of culture in mind, but also the biblical developments of culture throughout the Old and New Testaments.
There are many ways to summarize the biblical developments of culture in the Bible, but for our purposes, we'll look at these cultural developments through the same lens that we used to examine the foundations of culture. We'll look first at the importance of culture as biblical history developed. Then, we'll see how the two opposing cultural ideals developed in the Bible. Finally, we'll examine how cultural variety developed in the Scriptures. Let's begin with the importance of culture.
Culture is important in both the Old and New Testaments, but the importance of culture in the Old Testament appears most clearly in the amount of attention the early Scriptures give to Israel as a nation.
The book of Genesis describes cultural developments before Israel became a nation, but the entire Pentateuch — the first five books of the Bible — was written during the epoch of Moses' covenant of Law, after Israel had left Egypt and been gathered as a nation at Mount Sinai. For this reason, these books focus a lot of attention on God's commands and instructions for Israel's national life.
The rest of the Old Testament, from Joshua to Malachi, was written during the epoch of David's royal covenant, after Israel had already become a fully developed nation. These books address the spectrum of God's revelations that directed Israel's culture during its rise to imperial glory, the ups and downs of the divided kingdom, the exile, and the brief period of restoration at the end of the Old Testament.
Although the Old Testament describes many cultural developments that took place in Israel, the greatest cultural development in Scripture occurred in the transition from the Old Testament to the epoch of the new covenant in Christ. Instead of focusing on the national culture of Israel, the New Testament draws attention to the developments of cultural patterns in the Christian church.
To understand how this dramatic shift occurred, we need to remember that most Jews in first-century Palestine looked forward to the arrival of the new covenant age. As we learned in an earlier lesson, during the intertestamental period Jewish rabbis referred to all of history prior to the Messiah's arrival as "this age." And they taught that when the Messiah appeared, he would bring in "the age to come." They believed that in the age to come, the Messiah would appear, lead his people in battle against the evil nations of the world, and rapidly establish his people in his glorious, worldwide kingdom, dramatically and decisively altering the culture of Israel.
But Jesus and his apostles made it clear that his rule would unfold in three stages: the inauguration of his kingdom in his first coming, the continuation of his kingdom throughout church history, and the consummation of his kingdom at his second coming. This three-stage outlook led to a whole new understanding of the ways God expected the culture of his people to develop during the new covenant period.
It's very easy to lose sight of the importance of culture in the New Testament unless we keep in mind the final goal of Christ's kingdom as described in passages like Revelation 11:15:
The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever (Revelation 11:15).
In this passage, we see that Christ will one day destroy the "kingdom of the world" with its many rebellious cultures. But he will not simply destroy these evil cultures. He will also transform the world into a worldwide culture that can be described as the "kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ" where "he will reign for ever and ever."
So, rather than being a marginal element of the New Testament, culture is so important that every portion of this part of Scripture in some way deals with how Christ brings about the fulfillment of God's purposes for human culture.
Some passages focus on the ways Jesus set in motion the final stage of the cultural mandate by his life, death, resurrection, ascension and outpouring of the Spirit. Other portions of the New Testament focus on guiding the church as it helps transform the world through the gospel during the continuation of Christ's kingdom. And still other passages draw attention to the consummation when Christ will return to fulfill God's purposes for humanity and establish a culture in which God's will is done on earth as it is in heaven.
Now that we've explored biblical developments in culture by looking at the importance of culture in the development of biblical history, we can turn to the development of the two opposing cultural ideals found throughout the Bible.
The establishment of the two cultural ideals in Genesis 3 led Old Testament authors to associate the offspring of the Serpent with Gentile nations and the offspring of Eve with Israel.
Gentile nations developed their cultures in service to false gods and opposed the God of Israel. They set up shrines and temples to these false gods and sometimes even sacrificed their own children. God made it very clear that his people were to have nothing to do with these practices.
Israel, on the other hand, embraced the righteous laws God gave through Moses, and attempted to live in ways that glorified the one true God. They observed the Sabbath, avoided idolatry, and relied on God's guidance and protection instead of on human wisdom and strength.
Of course, this didn't mean that Gentiles couldn't be adopted into the nation of Israel by pledging their loyalty to God, or that Israelites couldn't become so corrupt that they became the enemies of God. But to the extent that each followed their customary ideals, Israel developed its culture in service to God, and Gentile nations developed their cultures in service to false gods.
Now, at the same time, the Old Testament and archeology also indicate that Israelite and Gentile cultures were similar in many ways. Some of these similarities resulted from Israelites following the sinful paths of their neighbors. But other similarities resulted from God's common grace restraining the sinful propensities of Gentiles, so that aspects of their cultures were at least superficially true to God's will. These cultural divisions continued throughout the Old Testament.
When we turn to the New Testament, the two opposing cultural ideals appear again, but with different associations.
Israel's long unfaithfulness, which began in the Old Testament, had left only a remnant of faithful Jews by the time of Christ's incarnation. And in the New Testament, Gentiles could now receive full adoption as God's people alongside this remnant. So, rather than dividing between the Jews and Gentile nations, New Testament authors associated followers of Christ with the seed of the woman and unbelievers with the seed of the Serpent, whether they were Jews or Gentiles.
This is why Jesus spoke of Satan as the father of the Pharisees in John 8:44. This also explains why, in Romans 16:20, Paul alluded to Genesis 3:15 when he assured the Christians in Rome that God would crush Satan under their feet.
The relationship between Israel and the Gentile nations is an interesting question… And if you look in Genesis 18 and elsewhere, God makes a promise to Abraham that he would bless Abraham and bless his descendants. And if we think of Scripture as a multi-act drama, you have the first act where God makes the promise to Abraham, and he preserves the nation of Israel, keeping it from the corrupt influences of the surrounding nations; they fail, but he disciplines them. He protects the nation until the Messiah comes. The Messiah comes and announces salvation for Israel. If you look in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says in Matthew 15, "I came for the lost sheep of Israel." This Canaanite woman is beseeching him for her daughter. And it's troubling sometimes. People say, "well, why isn't he immediately healing her daughter?" And Jesus is in some ways saying, "This is act two." Right? "I've come to announce salvation for the lost sheep of Israel." But then you get to the end of the gospel, Matthew 28, and we have what begins act three, the act that we're in, where the gospel goes forth to all nations, to Jews and to Gentiles alike. Now, in Romans 1 it's interesting, even in act three, Paul maintains this distinction. He speaks about "to the Jew first, then to the Gentile." He feels an obligation to his countrymen, to those who have the promises of Abraham: I have an obligation to announce to them first. So he goes to the synagogue and declares the promises given to our forefather are true. But when he's kicked out of the synagogue or when they'll no longer listen to him, he immediately goes to the Gentiles. Because, as he describes in Ephesians 2, through Christ's death on the cross, the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile is broken down… there's a beautiful unity we have now as Jew and Gentile together as adopted sons and daughters of God. [Dr. Robert L. Plummer]
The New Testament often warns believers not to be conformed to this world because the church and world follow opposing ideals. But at the same time, New Testament authors acknowledged that the line between the church and the world was not absolute. As culture developed in the Bible, early Christians often endorsed customs and philosophical outlooks that unbelievers followed. And as we learned earlier, some of these similarities resulted from the influence of sin on Christ's followers, and other similarities stemmed from the positive effects of common grace on the world.
In our focus on biblical cultural developments we've seen the importance of culture in the Old and New Testaments, and how opposing cultural ideals developed throughout biblical history. Let's now turn to our third topic: the development of cultural variety in the Scriptures.
When we explore the Old Testament, it's obvious that it contains many laws and instructions that were designed to solidify Israel's national culture. But this didn't mean that God expected all Israelite cultures to be exactly the same. In fact, as different communities within Israel faithfully applied God's special and general revelations, a variety of cultural patterns emerged.
Many of these variations occurred simultaneously. Levitical priests applied God's laws in certain ways in their communities, while at the same time kings and other political leaders applied God's laws differently. One family applied God's laws in ways appropriate for its members, while other families applied God's laws in ways that were appropriate for their members.
Beyond this, even more variations occurred as God gave more and more special revelations to Israel over time. God ordered certain cultural patterns for his people as they marched through the wilderness and different patterns during the conquest of Canaan. God ordained changes when he established kingship in Israel and also when he commanded Solomon to build the Temple in Jerusalem. Other variations in the culture of Israel took place during the exile and after the exile.
Some aspects of Israel's cultural life did not change very much throughout their history. They were a patriarchal culture from beginning to end. The husband was the major figure in the family. Not the only figure by any means. I'm reminded of Proverbs, which says that you much honor your father and not curse your mother. But nevertheless, the culture was largely patriarchal from beginning to end. On the other hand, their state life changed rather dramatically from loose clans and then more tightly organized tribal structure, finally to nation status, and then the nation being destroyed and them being simply a culture within a larger world empire and trying to understand, who are we then as the people of God? So, that political situation changed for them pretty dramatically over that period of time. [Dr. John Oswalt]
When we turn to the New Testament we find variety again. Old Testament cultural patterns were still applicable, but they had to be seen in the light of the fact that God's people were no longer a single nation. The people of God were now the church, a community called to live within many different national cultures. So, as you might expect, in the new covenant epoch God led his faithful people to develop even greater cultural variety.
Differences in people and circumstances led Christian communities to apply biblical teachings in different ways from one another. For instance, Jewish and Gentile believers observed distinctive cultural practices based on their own circumstances. And Christian churches located in different regions had to consider their own people and circumstances as they applied the Bible. And various family groups faithfully followed God's words in diverse ways.
But it's important to remember that new covenant special revelation didn't take place all at once. For nearly a century, God disclosed his will for the church through Christ and through Christ's apostles and prophets. So, the culture of the church in the New Testament also varied over time. For instance, the practice of circumcision changed dramatically when the apostles and elders met in Jerusalem in Acts 15. And every time a New Testament book was written and received, various Christian churches went through changes. For these and many other reasons, there was a great deal of cultural variety among Christian communities in New Testament times.
Now that we've looked at biblical culture and modern application by investigating the biblical foundations of culture and the way biblical developments affected culture in the Bible, let's turn to our third main topic. What do all of these considerations have to say about our modern application of Scripture?
In our day, many evangelicals think of faith primarily as a private, individual matter. Now to be sure, the Scriptures have much to say about our personal walk with God. But many of us stress this aspect of the Bible to the point that we have very little interest in the implications of Scripture for modern culture. But as we'll see, the Scriptures emphasize the cultural dimensions of our faith so much that we must devote ourselves to applying the Scriptures to culture today.
We'll consider the modern application of what the Bible teaches about culture in the same way that we looked at the foundations and developments of culture in Scripture. First, we'll explore the importance of culture when we apply Scripture. Next, we'll see how the two opposing cultural ideals should affect the application of Scripture today. And finally, we'll see how modern application must take into account the cultural variety that God has ordained for our times. Let's begin with the importance of culture in modern application.
Many portions of Scripture help us understand why it's important to apply the Bible to modern culture. But one of the easier ways to see this is to consider how Christ called his followers to influence every culture in the world by teaching the full range of what he'd commanded.
Listen to the way Jesus put it in Matthew 28:19-20, the familiar passage that Christians often call the Great Commission or the "gospel mandate." In this passage, Jesus told his disciples:
Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you (Matthew 28:19-20).
This passage summarizes the mission of Christ's followers until he returns in glory. But to appreciate how it relates to our modern cultural endeavors, it helps to see how this gospel mandate echoes the cultural mandate given to the human race in the beginning of Genesis. In the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28, God told humanity to "be fruitful and increase in number."
Similarly, in Matthew 28:19, Christ called his followers to increase in number when he said, "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Much like Adam and Eve were to fill the world with images of God, Christians are also to multiply God's redeemed images. And we do this in part by leading people to saving faith in Christ.
But Jesus' gospel mandate didn't stop with just increasing the number of God's faithful servants. According to Matthew 28:20, our mission also entails "teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Just as Adam and Eve were called to obey God by filling the earth and subduing it, Christians are to teach all nations to obey God by following his commands, and that includes instruction on nearly every facet of culture.
We can look at it this way: Adam and Eve were to obey God and build culture by subduing the earth, and we are to obey God and build culture by discipling the nations.
It should be evident from Matthew 28 that Jesus expected his followers to have an impact on every culture by baptizing believers and teaching his commandments to all nations. His teachings addressed very public cultural issues like poverty, finances, health, marriage, justice, ethnicity, politics and even paying taxes. This is why we find New Testament books touching a broad range of cultural issues.
Along these same lines, in Matthew 5:13-14, Christ boldly described his disciples as:
The salt of the earth … [and] … the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-14).
As history has shown time and again, when followers of Jesus faithfully devote themselves to teaching all that Christ commanded to every nation, we have the potential of positively influencing every facet of every culture in the entire world. And for this reason, our modern application of the Bible must address the full range of human culture.
In Matthew 5, Jesus tells his disciples that they are to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. And to a modern reader, this is kind of a mysterious statement… You think about, to the ancient hearers, what does that language convey especially rooted in the culture in the Scripture? And salt was something that preserved things from going rotten, so salt was added to meat or fish to keep it from rottening, to preserve it, and it was something that added flavor. And you think about Christians. Their influence in the world is to be a presence for righteousness in many ways under the instrument of God, preserving the culture or flavoring the culture with the presence of God's truth. And light pictures that as well. Light throughout Scripture is seen as an image of revelation, as revealing. And Christians are to be in the world revealing who God is, broadcasting, illumining a dark world with the truth and the righteousness of who God is. [Dr. Robert L. Plummer]
In our study of modern application and biblical culture, we've seen the importance of culture for Christ's followers today. Now let's look at our second topic. How should the existence of the two opposing cultural ideals impact our modern application of the Bible?
When Christ came to earth, he inaugurated the final stage of his great victory over Satan. But this victory will be completed only when Christ returns in glory at the consummation of all things. In the meantime, during the continuation of his kingdom, the human race continues to be divided between the offspring of the Serpent, the unbelieving world that pursues the cultural ideal of rebellion against God, and the offspring of Eve, followers of Christ that pursue the cultural ideal of service to God.
But, as it was in biblical times, the line between God's people and the world is not absolute. Until Christ returns, his people on earth will continue to struggle with the remaining influence of sin. We are free from sin's tyranny, but not free from its influence. At the same time, God's common grace still restrains the world so that even unbelievers often live in ways that, to some degree, conform to the will of God. And this is especially true of nations where the gospel has had great influence.
As followers of Christ, it's our responsibility to follow cultural paths that are true to God's will and to avoid those that are not. Sometimes the paths we pursue should be very different from the world. Biblical authors repeatedly warned their original audiences against falling into idolatry, sexual immorality, selfishness, pride, injustice and a host of other cultural evils. Wherever we see these kinds of evils in our own day, we are to turn away from them.
But other times, biblical authors encouraged their original audiences to recognize the influence of common grace on different aspects of social relationships, technology, art, music, architecture, law, and politics. Every time we find that the Scriptures approve of the ways unbelievers lived, we should search for similar effects of God's common grace on the cultures of the world today. As long as we remain true to the teachings of Scripture, we should freely endorse the blessings of common grace in science, art, politics and other facets of life.
We may find it difficult at times to discern how cultural patterns in Scripture apply to our day. But in general terms, we must take account of the ways God directed various dimensions of culture throughout the Bible. When we compare all that the Scriptures reveal about different dimensions of culture, we find at least four ways in which God directed cultural patterns. He permanently approved some patterns, such as marriage and work. Other patterns he only temporarily endorsed, such as the arrangement of the tribes of Israel during their march from Egypt to Canaan. At times, in his patience with sinners, God temporarily tolerated some cultural activities of his people, such as polygamy and slavery, even though he disapproved of them. And of course, throughout Scripture, we see many cultural patterns that received God's permanent disapproval, such as injustice and idolatry.
In other words, to apply a cultural pattern we find in the Bible to our lives today, we should look for God's evaluation in the passage itself. Then, we should search out relevant moral standards from other biblical passages and determine the motivations and goals behind the biblical cultural elements we see. In these ways, we can discern how cultural patterns in biblical passages represent the two opposing cultural ideals of service to God or rebellion against him. And as we do this, we'll be enabled to apply appropriate patterns of culture in the Bible to our modern world.
Having looked at modern application in the light of the importance of culture and at the opposing cultural ideals in the world today, we can now turn to a third consideration. How should we deal with cultural variety as we apply Scripture in our day?
When we visit different believers in various parts of the world, it's obvious that our languages, styles of dress, our diets, music, and many other cultural patterns can be very different. Why is this true? If we all seek to follow the standards of Scripture, then why have the patterns of our cultures gone in so many different directions? Well, needless to say, some of our differences exist because all of us fail to live in ways that are true to Scripture. But apart from our failures, there are many legitimate reasons for expecting cultural diversity among God's people throughout the world.
As we've seen, with the inauguration of the new covenant age, God's people were no longer a single nation. And over the last two thousand years, as the gospel has spread further and further around the world, God's faithful people have faced the challenge of living for Christ in increasingly diverse cultures. This challenge raises a crucial question. How much cultural variety should we allow? What limits should we set?
There are many places in Scripture that address this question, but one of the best places to explore this issue is 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. In this passage, Paul told the Corinthian church:
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings (1 Corinthians 9:19-23).
In this passage, Paul described how his commitment to fulfilling the gospel mandate led him to embrace a wide range of cultural concepts, behaviors and emotions. As he summarized it in verse 22, "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."
As one who travelled here and there, Paul had to exercise an extraordinary amount of cultural flexibility. In verse 20 he said that he "became like one under the law" when he was in Jewish communities. And in verse 21, he said that he "became like one not having the law" when he was in Gentile communities.
But notice how Paul drew limits on the cultural variety he was willing to embrace. In verse 20 he said, "I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law)." In other words, Paul followed the cultural patterns of Jewish communities, but he wasn't bound by the law as the religious leaders of his day understood it. Most of the Pharisees and religious leaders in Paul's time only used the law to flaunt their own self-righteousness. But, as Jesus indicated in Matthew 23, this behavior led to condemnation and death. Here, Paul explained that he embraced the culture without embracing cultural standards that ultimately would only bring him under God's judgment.
Similarly, in verse 21 he said, "I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law)." Paul shared in the cultural concepts, behaviors and emotions of Gentile communities, but only to the extent that he did not violate the law of God as Christ had interpreted it for his new covenant people.
In much the same way, to fulfill the gospel mandate today, faithful followers of Christ must be prepared to apply the Scriptures differently whenever they encounter people and circumstances from other cultural backgrounds. Local congregations, Christian businesses, schools, hospitals, and even friendships will be different from each other. And of course, as time passes, these communities will change as the people and circumstances involved change as well.
But this doesn't mean that we're free to shape the cultures of our communities any way we wish. On the contrary, like the apostle Paul, followers of Christ today must be firmly committed to staying within the parameters of Scripture. This commitment to remaining true to the Scriptures as we apply them in different ways to our communities is one of the most complex aspects of modern application.
As God reveals himself to us, he does so in space and time. That's part of the glory of his revelation and his plan of redemption. As we work from Old Testament era to New Testament era, obviously we interact with various cultures, people in different periods of time. There's all kinds of cultural variety that we see that's tied to certain places in history, certain places in terms of cultures and backgrounds. How do we know which variety applies to us, how it should be lived out? Well, I think first of all we have to evaluate variety in terms of the standard of certain moral demands. Certain cultural variety needs to be rejected because it is inconsistent with how God has made us — what his moral standards are, and those practices — even though they may reflect… cultural variety may reflect idolatry, may reflect a rejection of God and his standards. [Dr. Stephen J. Wellum]
Throughout biblical history, every community of God's faithful people maintained certain cultural patterns. But other cultural patterns changed over time. One way to determine how closely we should imitate any pattern of culture we find in the Bible is to pay attention to whether or not a particular cultural feature remained the same throughout Scripture or changed to accommodate different eras, people or circumstances.
If cultural patterns changed in Scripture, we should expect them to be changeable in our time as well. But if facets of culture remained the same throughout biblical history, we must consider them standards for us today.
For example, family structures and living situations have changed over the last 2,000 years, but Scripture consistently instructs children to obey their parents. This is still true for us today. And although legal systems varied from culture to culture and era to era, Scripture never altered the fact that God's people are expected to be honest witnesses when called to testify. Political systems, clothing, music, food preferences, and many other facets of culture changed throughout biblical history, but the directive to honor and serve God in our families, work places, and communities has remained consistent.
As followers of Christ, we should be careful to distinguish these continuities and discontinuities every time we apply a cultural pattern in Scripture to our own day.
In this lesson, we've explored several important dimensions of biblical culture and modern application. We've seen the biblical foundations of culture in the early chapters of the Bible. We've looked at biblical developments that took place in culture in both the Old and New Testaments. And we've explored how the aspects of culture in the Bible should affect our modern application of Scripture.
The Bible itself makes it clear that faithful followers of Christ must apply the teachings of Scripture not simply to themselves as individuals, but to the cultural dimensions of their lives as well. Even during the epoch of the new covenant, we are still images of God and we've been called to build human culture in ways that please God. This mandate will continue in effect until Christ returns. So, we must learn how the Scriptures apply to every dimension of modern culture.
Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. (Host) is Co-Founder and President of Third Millennium Ministries. He served as Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary for more than 20 years and was chair of the Old Testament department. An ordained minister, Dr. Pratt travels extensively to evangelize and teach. He studied at Westminster Theological Seminary, received his M.Div. from Union Theological Seminary, and earned his Th.D. in Old Testament Studies from Harvard University. Dr. Pratt is the general editor of the NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible and a translator for the New Living Translation. He has also authored numerous articles and books, including Pray with Your Eyes Open, Every Thought Captive, Designed for Dignity, He Gave Us Stories, Commentary on 1 & 2 Chronicles and Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians.
Dr. Jimmy Agan is Associate Professor of New Testament and Director of Homiletics at Covenant Theological Seminary.
Dr. Bruce Baugus is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary.
Rev. Mike Glodo is Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida.
Dr. John Oswalt is the Visiting Distinguished Professor of Old Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary.
Dr. Jonathan T. Pennington is Associate Professor of New Testament Interpretation and the Director of Research Doctoral Studies at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Dr. Robert L. Plummer is Associate Professor of New Testament Interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Dr. Philip Ryken is President of Wheaton College.
Dr. Stephen J. Wellum is Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.


text:
- This event has passed.
Tots and Tales Storytime
July 11 @ 10:00 am - 10:30 am
Children ages 0-2, accompanied by an adult will love every minute of fun in these story times! Enjoy sharing rhymes, songs, stories and plenty of smiles together!
Registration is required by visiting the children's department or calling 330-854-4148.


text:
Tags: Education, Policy, Violence in the School
There aren't any comments yet, be the first to comment!
Get involved by sharing your thoughts on Ashley's story!
You need to be logged in to leave a comment. Please login. If you don't already have an account, create one now!Scroll to comments
Suggested Stories:


text:
OX40 immune agonists at AACR 2016
It's Day 6 of our Countdown to the AACR 2016 annual meeting in New Orleans. We're at the halfway, 6 posts written and 6 more to go! Then it will be daily Live blogs from the meeting.
There's a lot of cancer immunotherapy at AACR this year, so after yesterday's post on GITR we're continuing our mini-series with a look at another immune agonist.
Today, we're moving onto OX40 (CD134) as a novel immuno-target. Regular readers will know that we've been following this target for some time.
Immune agonists such as GITR, OX40, CD40, CD27 and 4-1BB help to rev up T cells. As Dr Tom Gajewski (Chicago) told us last year, in an interview published on the blog:
…there are inhibitory receptors on activated T cells that are involved with shutting immune responses down. There are also activating receptors that help to rev up those T cells. You might question whether you can push an activator and block an inhibitor, and maybe get a good anti-tumor response going as well.
When we drive a car, we both lift our foot off the break and we step on the accelerator. We have really beautiful data in animals that that this is exactly the case, that if you hit one of those strong positive regulators, and block just one of the negative regulators, you can have complete disappearance of the tumors in mice.
Several of those positive agonistic antibodies against costimulatory receptors are in the clinic. One of them is anti-OX40 that a couple of groups have in the clinic. We're working with Genentech, that has one of those agents in phase I.
What does the OX40 competitive landscape look like?
In those post we've provided commentary on some of the new products in development from companies and highlighted a surprising number of abstracts that you'll want to watch out for at AACR 2016 if you're on the cancer immunotherapy track.


text:
Expert's Rating
- Very fast
- Economical toner
- Slight graininess or fogginess in photos
Our Verdict
Dell's 5130cdn color laser printer aims high—and on nearly all counts, it succeeds. It has the speed and features that a high-volume office needs, and it's also on target with its nearly perfect print quality. The initial purchase price is high, but over the long haul its superlow cost per page will save you money.
The 5130cdn is the fastest printer we've tested to date by a significant margin. On plain paper, it printed text at a rapid clip of 25.2 pages per minute (ppm). Graphics speeds ranged from 8.3 ppm for simpler graphics to 3.2 ppm for high-quality photo printing. On the Mac, using its PostScript driver, the 5130cdn was slightly less speedy: Printing plain text, it averaged 22.5 ppm, while on graphics it averaged 3.1 ppm. On both PCs and Mac, the print quality was the same. Text quality was black and crisp. Overall color quality was very good, with natural colorings and some light graininess, which was more pronounced in grayscale graphics.
The 5130cdn's hulking, dullish-black exterior may look intimidating, but it houses a well-equipped and well-designed machine. The 256MB of DDR-2 standard memory is upgradable to 1.2GB. The standard paper handling includes a 550-sheet main tray and a 150-sheet multipurpose tray. If you need even more capacity, 550-sheet ($249) and 1100-sheet ($599) additional trays are available, as well as a $999 component for stapling (up to 50 sheets at a time) and stacking up to 1000 sheets. You fold down a front panel to access the toner cartridges and the separate drums, and the entire right-side panel also folds down for clearing jammed paper paths (of which we had none).
The front control panel's cursor and navigation buttons, as well as the monochrome LCD, are intuitive, as is the printer's internal HTML configuration site that allows you to change settings via a Web browser. What all of that adds up to is a sense that this printer is meant to work, not play. Its 110,000-page monthly duty cycle would seem to confirm that.
The 5130cdn ships with standard-size supplies: a 9000-page black cartridge ($107 to replace) and 6000-page cyan, magenta, and yellow cartridges ($195 each to replace). That's about 1.2 cents per black page and 3.3 cents per color (or 10.9 cents for a four-color page) out of the box. High-yield supplies offer greater savings: The $137, 18,000-page black cartridge costs less than 1 cent per page, and the $245, 12,000-page color cartridges cost about 2 cents per color, adding up to a superlow 6.9 cents for a four-color page.
Macworld's buying advice
Dell's 5130cdn is a nicely designed workhorse of a color laser printer with the speed of a thoroughbred. It may seem a bit too rich for your blood, however, its consumables are affordable and the cost per page is low.


text:
|Catalyst JOEH Find Consultants Job Board Member Center Marketplace
|About AIHA Membership Get Involved AIHA University Events IH/OEHS Careers Public Resources
|We believe that worker health and safety is a fundamental human right, and that's why we tirelessly work to promote and advance the occupational and environmental health and safety profession and those who practice it.
|Technical Guide for Wildfire Impact Assessments for the OEHS Professional
|Wildfire impact assessments are complex by nature and can involve the investigator, property owner, laboratory, and insurance company adjuster. The OEHS professional conducting a wildfire impact investigation must define its purpose and objectives and develop a working hypothesis to drive all phases of the assessment from initial inspection, to sampling, analysis, and data interpretation. Properly documenting the extent and impact helps to evaluate a range of reasonable options for restoration to return the structure and the indoor environment as close as possible to its pre-wildfire condition, while also protecting the health and safety of restoration workers and returning occupants. This guide will assist OEHS professionals in conducting defensible wildfire impact assessments, and to evaluate restoration options to promote a safe and healthy indoor environment.
Stock #: ESAH18-796
Author/Editor: Edited by Enrique Medina
Member: $29/ Non-Member: $49
Your Price: $49.00