Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Seeking Sinless Perfection

    Stripped image of John Wesley
    Image via Wikipedia

    Because I have some online watches for names of Energion Publications authors, I found the post In Search of Sinless Perfection, which quotes Alden Thompson. This comes from a Seventh-day Adventist background, but I must mention that I have been surprised by how much from my own SDA background simply translates into Methodism. One may easily underestimate the impact of the fact that Ellen White, early SDA leader viewed as having the prophetic gift, was a Methodist before she joined the Adventist movement.

    In any case, Ellen White quotes aside, Loren Seibold, author of the article gives a number of the reasons I have for questioning the idea of sinless perfection. Certainly the Wesleyan doctrine as actually taught by Wesley (try here for more, though you may find the account less plain than you imagined) seems less problematic than its various descendants.

    I love the introductory story, which ends:

    Then the perfect man hung up on me.

    Perhaps not the ending one imagined for a conversation with a perfect man!

    I too am a believer in sanctification. Where I must get off this particular train, however, is where one gets a personal knowledge that one is perfect. I just can’t see how that would work.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • A Test to Determine if One is a Christian

    Early Christian ichthys sign carved into marbl...
    Image via Wikipedia

    I’m pretty annoyed to have judges trying to make a determination of whether one is a Christian based on their knowledge. That reflects a very poor understanding of Christianity that probably comes from someone who has grown up Christian and doesn’t really understand someone who is a recent convert.

    The story is here. At least the appeals court has sent the case back for review.

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • John MacArthur Discovers the Greek Word DOULOS

    T. C. Robinson posted the promotional video, in a post titled John MacArthur Charges Bible Translators with Conspiracy, which I’ll embed here for reference:

    One must make some allowance here for publisher hype, but nonetheless I find the promo a bit cringe-worthy. One of the commenters asks what MacArthur did before he discovered the meaning of the word doulos. Of course, I doubt he did discover it; this is marketing.

    On the other hand I believe there is some validity to the idea that doulos should be translated slave more frequently than it often is.

    What does bother me here is the implicit accusation against Bible translators. One way to get persecuted–today as in the past–is to translate the Bible. I like to have respect for these folks. They do hard work, and quite frankly get little thanks for it. It’s one reason I also object to pastors telling congregations that their translations are “wrong” or “inaccurate” and claiming that they’ll provide the correct translation. As I often say when I’m asked to translate on the fly, “Don’t expect me to produce a better translation while I’m standing here than a highly qualified committee produces working over a period of months.” In most cases, when I hear a pastor say tell the congregation that their English translations are “wrong,” it would be more correct to say the pastor is wrong.

    My favorite instance was when a speaker announced that a text was not accurately translated, then said it consisted of four Greek words (wrong!) and then he said the four Greek words, none of which were in the Greek text. I know this because I was, as usual, following along with my Greek New Testament.

    Besides the misinformation, this makes people distrust their English translations. There is a certain healthy level of mistrust that goes with any translation, but it’s easy to overstate, and it’s easy for people who don’t understand translation to misunderstand what does and does not work in translation.

    The fact is that while I’ll frequently complain about various translations, it’s not because the renderings are stupid or incompetent, it’s just that I disagree. Likely some members of the translation committee disagreed as well. But you have to use one rendering in the end.

  • Best Pew Bible?

    Ken Schenck answers the question of what translation he’d endorse as a pew Bible. I must say that I give him the “Henry Neufeld award” for hedging his answer. For those of you who haven’t met me in real life, I’m known for giving long answers that provide plenty of verbal provisos or footnotes. At one church I attended, the education director called me aside one day to tell me that when church members asked me a question about the Bible they didn’t want a dissertation! My suggestion: Then don’t ask me!

    The best Bible version is one you readThis applies to any form of the “which Bible version is best” question. It’s nice when people specify “best for …” so at least you can limit it to some extent. Across the front of my little book What’s in a Version? I have the sentence: “The best Bible version is the one you read!”

    I’ve had any number of people tell me about the many cases in which that would be wrong. My point is that the Bible is not about possessing it, it’s about reading and absorbing it, and if you don’t read it, forget it. The most theoretically accurate translation is of no value if you can’t or don’t read it.

    Even with that on the front of the book, at practically every show where we’ve displayed it, someone asks, “But really, Henry, what is the best Bible version?” The answer:  It depends!

    So now that I’ve proven I can’t answer a question briefly, what about pew Bibles? I agree with a number of comments that Ken Schenck made in his post, though I would disagree mildly that for detailed study of a text in a class you want a heavily formal equivalence translation. There is a value in such a translation, but in my opinion, there is a great danger in the heavily literal style in that people read it under the impression they’re getting closer to the meaning of the Greek or Hebrew, but they really aren’t.

    I’m tempted to suggest that people go from a mildly dynamic translation straight to the original languages. With a dynamic version, you know that the translators are trying to interpret the text and express the thought. In literal translation, all too frequently people believe that interpretation is not taking place, and that if they just have an English word for every Greek and Hebrew word (or a short phrase), they’re getting close. They aren’t.

    While I have problems with certain renderings in every translation I own, I don’t find dynamic translations generally weaker in that area. I think those of us who read the original languages regularly tend to understand a literal translation according to what we know the original says, and thus miss the many ways in which someone who isn’t aware of the source text might misunderstand the literal rendering.

    My own recommendation regarding a pew Bible would be:

    • Give strong consideration to the way the text sounds when read.
    • Consider the congregation. An older congregation might be more comfortable with the RSV or even the KJV, though I think the latter can interfere with mission. A very young congregation which includes children in the main service might do well with the CEV. I agree with the NLT as a good pew Bible.
    • Consider cost. Some Bibles are printed in economical pew Bible editions.
    • Consider what your congregation uses mostly for study. I recall one congregation that ordered NRSV pew Bibles for a congregation that was used to the NIV. The pastor preached from the NIV. The pew Bibles gathered dust.
    • Consider not having pew Bibles. Projecting texts on screen is an option, but I would consider skipping that as well. (See below.)

    I must confess that I have a serious problem with the whole idea of pew Bibles. I grew up without them. I always had my own Bible. I honestly can’t remember I time when I didn’t. Now I enounter Sunday School classes that have a shelf of Bibles so class members can grab a Bible if they need one. Sunday School in which you might not need a Bible? The idea makes me sick.

    The whole notion strikes me as part of worship as a spectator sport. Convenience is OK, but not if it reduces involvement. What about marking one’s Bible? What about gathering questions and getting into discussion? What about looking at the text later when you get home?

    So if you want my bottom line recommendation, it would be not to have pew Bibles at all. If you project text on screen, do so only for the scripture reading and for responsive readings (one of the few good reasons for pew Bibles, in my opinion).

  • View on Justification

    Andy Johnson of Nazarene Seminary has a nice overview. (HT: Cross Talk and Chrisendom)

  • Critical Views of OT vs. NT

    I’ve noticed in conversation with a number of pastors over the last few years that many tend to take a more conservative view with regard to authorship of the New Testament than they do of the old. This is, of course, strictly anecdotal, limited to my own experience.

    For example, someone may argue vehemently for early dating and historical reliability of the gospels, or Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles while accepting a late date for Daniel or for the final composition of the Pentateuch or a 2nd century date for Daniel.

    My point is not that they are necessarily wrong. I take some relatively liberal positions on a number of these issues myself. What I’m wondering is whether there is indeed a difference. Most of my study, both formal and on my own since, has involved the Old Testament, and I tend to accept more of the Old Testament critical theories than I do for the New Testament, where I tend to avoid a specific decision on issues I haven’t studied in as much detail. But the folks to whom I’m referring have studied the New Testament more thoroughly than the Old, and take a reverse position.

    I’ve written a brief survey, just 11 questions, to kind of get an idea. Doing this online is not scientific, and I haven’t spent enough time on these questions in any case, but I’d still be interested in getting a general idea.

    I’ll post the results here later.

    Online Survey Software

    Take the Online Survey

  • Almost Thou Persuadest Me

    Collins being sworn in.
    Image via Wikipedia

    RJS at Jesus Creed has a post titled simply “belief” after the book by the same name edited by Dr. Francis Collins. In discussing the relationship between faith and reason, or perhaps faith and science, he poses the following questions:

    If someone approached you in a coffee shop and asked you what argument for faith you found most persuasive, what would it be? Why?

    Who has had the greatest impact on your thinking?

    I meet these questions with mixed emotions. I can certainly tell you who influenced my thinking the most. It’s easier to do this regarding my return to the church, which had a great deal more to do with reasoning and thinking than my conversion at age 9.

    The most influential writer in my decision to return to the church was C. S. Lewis, and the most influential book was Mere Christianity. I find a certain satisfaction in the argument that common morals points back to God the creator. Given some of the reading that I’ve done in theological works, this may be somewhat surprising. My own theological thinking has been influenced by many writers, but Lewis was there at the start.

    But when I’m asked to state what argument for faith that I find most persuasive, I can’t give the same answer. The very argument that was most present in my own return to the church is not one that I find ultimately persuasive.  In fact, while I find many arguments informative and helpful, there are not that I find ultimately persuasive. I must confess that, while I’m Arminian in theology, the spiritual feel of my own conversion–as well as return–may sound somewhat Calvinistic. I was dragged kicking and screaming on God’s timing, not mine.

    Two years ago, in a post called On Being a Liberal Charismatic Believer, I wrote:

    But when I read Jack Burden’s post, I realized something else. The label “believer” has never bothered me. In fact, I have insisted on it. I even occasionally use “true believer” of myself. Why? I confess that, unlike some Christian apologists, I cannot prove that God exists, that Jesus rose from the dead, or that God communicates to us through scripture. I can’t even match the gentler (and better, in my view) form of apologetics that claims that the evidence is sufficient to make this the best option.

    I’ve made the leap of faith. While I am quite unadventurous physically, in the spiritual sense I looked out over the chasm as did Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade, closed my eyes and put my foot down on empty space. I think my foot landed on that hidden bridge; others think they hear the echoes of my screams as I fall. Ah well, it’s my leap of faith, after all.

    So like Agrippa, I am almost persuaded, but unlike Agrippa, I am a Christian.

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • More on Spiritual Fitness for Soldiers

    I wrote earlier on this topic. Here’s another letter on the topic. I will only add that in my view there is simply no excuse for a Christian chaplain using the power of Caesar to attempt to get converts. I am strongly opposed to force and manipulation. This isn’t the gospel message and it misrepresents Christ.

  • What Makes a Person Great?

    3. Martin Luther King, Jr., a civil rights act...
    Image via Wikipedia

    Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man.

    Said today, that is a rather unremarkable statement. Back in 1968, when Martin Luther King was assassinated, it would have sparked intense, even violent, debate. To some he was a troublemaker. To others, evil. To yet others, he was a danger to society. And to certain parts of our society, to many broader structures that many felt were essential, he was a danger.

    In 1968, when I first heard of him, what I heard was not generally favorable. Nobody told me he was a great man. Our family had just returned from Mexico, where we had been for four years. I was just old enough to start thinking a bit about politics. What I first heard wasn’t good.

    Time has changed all that. Death and time makes people reevaluate their viewpoints. Time has seen the opinions of many shift so that many things for which Dr. King hoped do not seem so remarkable. We are still far from “free at last” but we have made some progress. I’ve read quite a number of favorable blog posts regarding this man today.

    I have to wonder whether he would be so well received if he were alive today. In fact, I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t be. And that troubles me.

    The cause of integration was right back in the 50s and 60s, yet many didn’t recognize it. How can we recognize something that is right now, rather than waiting for people to die for it.

    That’s what I’ve been thinking about as I can today. How can I get on board for the right movement today?

    I want to add one quote and link, because I hear so many Christians claim that just because something is the law, it must necessarily be obeyed. The following is from Dr. King’s Letter From Birmingham Jail:

    You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

    So the argument here is that a law that fosters injustice must be resisted.

    (HT: The Agitator)

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Bob Cornwall Reviews Commentary on Mark

    at Christian Century. Of all the book reviews available, I think commentary reviews are the most valuable.