Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • 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.

  • What is Cutting Edge?

    From Pensapedia.com / Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5

    The description of the ICON service at my home church, First United Methodist Church in Pensacola, FL, states that the service is:

    • Cutting Edge
    • Tradition Rich
    • Art Embracing
    • Christ Centered

    This worship service just celebrated its second anniversary, and I was happy today to see that the sanctuary was largely filled. It has been both amazing and gratifying to me to watch the success of this particular worship service as it has been the entry point to church fellowship for a large number of people, especially young couples. I must confess that I often feel a bit old attending.

    Today associate minister at First UMC, Geoffrey Lentz, preached on cutting edge. He noted the things that make people think the service is cutting edge–large, high-definition screens, state of the art sound, and the embrace of social media. But he said that wasn’t what makes it really cutting edge. The one genuinely new thing under the sun, with due apologies to Qoheleth, is Jesus Christ. He told us that the most cutting edge thing we could possibly do is to follow Jesus Christ.

    Now I like many of the elements of worship in ICON. I think many of those elements, and the way they are blended, has helped make the service successful. But if you had asked me before this service why I think First UMC is growing, I would tell you it is because the pastors are preaching the gospel and making every effort to put it in practice. If you attend First UMC, you’re going to hear a gospel message.

    I don’t say this to belittle any other accomplishments. I just don’t think those are the key things. Large, high-definition screens showing well-produced videos can help bring people into the room. Well-done contemporary music can catch their attention. But if the message behind those things is not Jesus Christ and him crucified, there will be nothing to keep people in church. And if you don’t get there, you also don’t get them into ministry, and I would say that if one doesn’t get into ministry (or more directly stated mission), then one hasn’t really brought that person to Christ.

    I was glad to hear Geoffrey make that point. While I have just argued that the worship service is worship, even though everything we do is to be worship, I also believe that a major test of the success of a worship service is whether or not it gets us engaged in those acts of service–and worship–that are to go on all week.

     

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • The Problem with 1 Corinthians 14 Worship

    In Sunday School this morning we touched on 1 Corinthians 14 and worship. I again brought up the issue I see with the way that 1 Corinthians 14 is applied to modern worship.

    On the one hand are those who use it to prevent innovation. To them the key verse is 1 Corinthians 14:40, “Let everything be done decently and in order” (KJV). And it’s generally the KJV that is quoted at this point. This means, according to many, that we don’t need deviations from the order of service. We don’t need words from people that aren’t on the plan for that morning. I’ve heard it used in complaints about excessive loud “amens” or about people raising their hands as they sing. What this has to do with the rest of the chapter, nobody is very inclined to explain. If it doesn’t look like order to you, it’s condemned by 1 Corinthians 14:40.

    On the other hand, there are those who see this chapter as a series of rules for managing certain types of activities. What do we do with people who have prophetic words? What do we do with speaking in tongues? If you don’t have these specific things in your worship service, of course, you don’t really need the guidelines. Who cares if there is an interpreter present if no tongues are spoken?

    I’m not interested right now in whether or not these activities belong in the modern church. Rather, I’m thinking about the background. In my opinion, the reason we don’t understand this chapter very well is that we really don’t have that many churches with the problems that the Corinthian church had.

    Consider:

    How then should it be, brothers and sisters? When you come together each one has a psalm, each one has something to teach, each one has a revelation, each one has a tongue [perhaps message in a tongue], each one has an interpretation. Let everything be done for building up the church (14:26).

    Now let’s be honest. When was the last time you went to a church service and found that everyone showed up with something constructive to provide to the worship service? If you go to such a church (and I’ve experienced this once or twice in half a century), then you are very blessed.

    We look to 1 Corinthians 14 to tell us how to control something that’s really pretty dead. Here are the Corinthians, with all their problems, showing up filled with excitement and ready to contribute. The problem there was to channel the enthusiasm so that everything can be done so as to build up instead of breaking up into confusion. Thus we have a call for two or three to speak, not everyone.

    Learning and Living Scripture

    I think we should be asking how we could experience the problem and then we might need to think about the remedy. The problem is a good thing. It’s like the enthusiasm and excitement of a child first experiencing an outdoor ball game. The child is enthusiastic, runs around, and does things with the ball.

    Now consider what would happen if we handled children at their first ball game the way we handle people in church. If we had on our church hats, we’d probably tell the kids to go sit on the sidelines until they had completed seminary or something of the sort. Only when they were fully responsible could a very small number of them get involved in actually playing ball.

    So how would we get this problem? I think we need to open up the service to more people. My wife Jody regularly tells whoever will listen that every church service should include testimonies. How would we get to the point where many people have something to say? Well, this goes back to making life into worship. If we’re spending our time with God during the week, we’ll want to talk about it when we gather together with other believers. It will happen naturally.

    Again, it seems to me that mission provides the driving force. If we’re involved in mission all week, we’ll be filled with the things of God, and sharing and mutual edification will come naturally.

    This is one of several points of the Sharing phase of the participatory Bible study method for which this blog is named.

    (See my other post on worship today, What is Cutting Edge? from my Threads blog.)

  • On Evolutionary Christians

    The Christian Post has an article on a series of teleconferences that are available via evolutionarychristianity.com. The post uses scare quotes to set off the word “evolutionary” and in some ways I find the title troubling, just as I do the term theistic evolution.

    While I believe acceptance of the theory of evolution will have an impact on some beliefs, and while I do believe religion and science do have overlapping areas of study, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and qualifying it with a theological position sounds odd to me. Even so, what’s the alternative.

    Evolutionary Christianity seems troubling to me in the reverse sense. Here we have a theology qualified by a scientific theory. That also seems unjustified with me. Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is not entirely accurate in my view, yet one needs to keep one’s categories in some order. Science tells us about the physical world and what happens in it. To the extent that creation tells of its creator, this does impact theology, yet placing a single theory as the qualifier for a view of Christianity … seems odd.

    Just some musings …

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta