Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Nova: Buried Secrets

    I had an unfortunate brain failure (probably need to reboot!) and missed the first part, then I was interrupted twice more, but what I did see of the Nova show The Bible’s Buried Secrets looked pretty good.

    Since for similar reasons (messed up time and all) I didn’t record, but it looks like the site will have the full program available online tomorrow. Once I watch the rest, I may comment some more. In the meantime, it looks like it might not be a bad idea to watch this.

  • Reading Psalm 100 Out Loud

    One of my Bible study methods, though most important for devotional reading, is to read a passage aloud.  Since the lectionary Psalm for this week is Psalm 100, which is very short, I thought I’d read it aloud in a number of versions and then write my subjective impressions.

    I chose to read it from the REB, NJB, CEV, NRSV, The JPS Tanakh, and the NLT.  There was very little method to all this; those versions were just nearest my computer at the time.  I could have read from more by either walking farther or by using my Logos library, but I didn’t.

    Prior to reading these aloud in English I had read the Psalm a few times in Hebrew and had done a draft literal translation myself.

    The purpose of the exercise, beyond “whatever” was to get a feel for how each version would function in public reading.  I’m frequently asked what the “best” translation is, and one obvious question is always “best for what?”

    First, whether more functional or more formally equivalent, the translations were more similar than I would have expected when read side by side.  The NJB was fairly choppy.  I like its use of “Yahweh” in the Psalm, though I don’t use that as a rule in reading publicly.  The REB was similarly a bit choppy and appeared to use vocabulary that didn’t fit well.  (Note that I normally prefer the REB, though today was an exception.

    I disliked the use of “love” to translate Hebrew “hesed”, as was done by the CEV and the REB.  I understand the reason in the CEV, but the REB uses “acclaim” in verse 1, “acknowledge” in verse 3, I think they might have employed a few more letters on “hesed.”

    The very positive thing about the CEV is that it is very easy to understand when heard, with no difficult vocabulary.  At the same time, it loses all sense of Hebrew rhythm and parallelism.  This is one of those necessary trade-offs in translation.  You’re going to lose something, and if your goal is to translate for a fairly basic set of English vocabulary.

    The JPS Tanakh is an excellent translation, though it didn’t seem to read as well as the NLT read aloud.  The NRSV sounded remarkably good to me, which again is not usual.  I usually like the NRSV for the formal equivalence, but dislike its sound.  Unfortunately, it is the Bible used for most scripture readings at my church.

    Overall I would give the edge to the NLT as a compromise between easy to understand, decently flowing English text, maintaining some sense of the parallelism, and not translating any of the Hebrew words in too jarring a manner.

    All this is, as I have said, very subjective.  One impression is very strong–all of the translations seemed less smooth and readable when read aloud than when read silently.  I know the CEV is designed to be read orally, but I think there it is very hard for me to come from reading the Hebrew text with the parallelism and some sense of similar length poetic lines, and then go to a translation that deliberately eliminates both elements.

    I suspect that a major reason why the NRSV sounds good to me in this case is that this is one of those Psalms I memorized in the KJV as a child, and the NRSV is the closest to the KJV amongst those I read.

    One thing I believe I should think about is the quality of reading involved.  There are some readers who can make a scripture reading really resonate.  I wonder how much my own inclinations about reading impacted the way I felt about what I read aloud?

  • Christ the King Sunday – Preliminary Thoughts

    My pastor preached from the gospel lesson, Matthew 25:31-46 this past Sunday, and reminded me of something important.  Though this is called a parable, it is really much more of an apocalyptic vision, presenting the scene of judgment day.

    Besides the differences in the way one would understand a vision and a parable, this provides a good context for connecting the various texts.  Consider the visions around the throne for example in Revelation 4 & 5, or even other theophanies such as Ezekiel 1 or the second coming scene in Daniel 7.

    What does it mean to stand before God?  How will we feel when we do so?  Frequently we speak of “being in the presence of God” in our worship services, but the presence of God is never so casual a thing in scripture.

    In our texts we have the question of the shepherds that God is going to replace because they haven’t been feeding his people in Ezekiel 34:11-16, 20-24.  God’s judgment in that case involves removal from a position but if we tie it in to the view of the sheep and the goats, who are asked whether they cared for one another, then the failure of the shepherds takes on a new–and final–meaning.

    Psalm 100 is the most positive of these texts in that it is a Psalm of praise.  In the one sense it’s entirely positive, but it references the “sheep of God’s pasture” (v. 3) which might give a slightly different view if connected with the shepherds of Ezekiel 34 and the goats of Matthew 25!

    Finally, Ephesians 1 brings us in for another angle, but connects to Matthew 25 by centering the entire judgment, and the path to judgment, in Jesus Christ, his work, and his authority and lordship.

    I think it will be very hard to teach or preach from this passage without centering in some way on the final judgment.

     

  • Coolness and Complacency

    OK, I’m going to try for three short notes at a time. In this case I’m helped by Dave Warnock, who already wrote on the topic.

    It seems that Adrian Warnock doesn’t like people to be “cool-headed” about the atonement. He says:

    To be honest, when I heard this book was going to be “cool-headed” I was already concerned about it. I’m not sure the atonement is a subject that it’s possible to be terribly cool about. That’s because another word for cool is lukewarm. Jesus hates us to be lukewarm about crucial issues, even threatening to spit the lukewarm from his mouth (Revelation 3). I much prefer interacting with someone who is either hot or cold about important issues like this.

    Dave correctly points out that Adrian is using a questionable definition of “cool-headed.” But I would like to make a few more remarks.

    There’s a tendency among many religious or spiritual people to believe that the more belligerent and confrontational one is, the more truly one believes and is committed to one’s beliefs. I would suggest that just as frequently the one who is belligerent and pushy is quite insecure about those beliefs and makes up for confidence with bluster.

    I’m frequently told that my self-designation as a passionate moderate is an oxymoron, as one cannot be both passionate and moderate at the same time. There’s a grain of truth to this, if I accept that the meaning of words is determined by usage. But many people who self-identify as moderates would also regard themselves as passionate about their moderate beliefs. Having determined on a position that is not at either extreme on a particular issue, I can be quite passionate about opposing either of the extremes.

    But there’s another point here. Often being cool-headed is the best way to advocate for a particular course of action. You stir more people up by being confrontational, but you don’t necessarily persuade anybody that you’re right.

    Having said that, I’m not sure that I’m as cool-headed as Dave on this one. Frankly I do find the hard-line position of penal substitutionary atonement, when it includes the idea that this is the meaning of the atonement, rather than one (only slightly) helpful metaphor amongst many, is not just wrong, but dangerous. It is a position that drives people away from God’s grace, not toward it in many cases. I also believe it is scripturally wrong.

    Often the liberal or moderate position is argued as an OK, not so tense, alternative to the conservative position–acceptable, rather than more correct. That is unfortunate. I believe what I do because I believe those positions to be better than, not merely an OK alternative for more relaxed people. I regard the teaching of PSA as the meaning of the atonement as wrong. I regard exclusion of women from positions in ministry as wrong. It is not that I ask tolerance from my more conservative brethren for my sake. Rather, I believe tolerance would be good for them.

    So perhaps I’m not the best person to argue for cool-headedness in this case.

  • Theodicy and Politics

    This is another brief thought. As I was thinking about politics I also considered some of the questions that come up in theodicy. In politics, many of us look for protection from risk, from the consequences of our own actions.

    It seems to me that in theodicy many people prevent “consequences” as an example of an evil universe. The idea seems to be that a “good” universe is one in which everyone is comfortable and never has to do any suffering no matter what. The universe as created, of course, includes many, many consequences.

    We should at least divide these between consequences of our own actions, and consequences of the actions of others. If my actions bring consequences for me, that’s one thing. When those consequences begin to hurt my wife, my children, or my grandchildren, that’s another matter. But in reality, it’s hard to imagine an arrangement of the universe that distinguishes those things.

    It may be that we really do live in the best possible universe–if people are allowed meaningful choices.

  • Quick Thoughts on the Economy

    As an exercise in brevity, some things that occurred to me while watching political TV and reading the blogs:

    • An economic expert is one who provides the arguments that allow me to get what I want. An incompetent economist is one that says I can’t have it.
    • The entire argument is based on need. The financial sector needed capital, the automakers need money to get through this situation (however long that is), the country needs the auto industry not to collapse.
    • I hope someone is asking just what it is that is going to make any of these sectors come out of the spin. They aren’t going to do it because we need them to.
    • If a company is borrowing money to build a factory, that’s hopeful. If a company is borrowing substantially to cover cash flow, that’s dangerous. It doesn’t change if the government is lending the money.
    • It’s interesting to see the difference between the folks in the white house and those in congress. Bush is asking for things that a very similar to what Obama wants; congressional Republicans want to say no. (I’m with the congressional Republicans on this, though I doubt they’ll be at all consistent.)

    It doesn’t look good!

  • Headline Bias

    While I’m at talking about the auto industry, how about the following headline from MNSBC.com:

    Republicans to Detroit: Drop dead

    Biased? Read the article yourself and see if that’s what the Republicans in question were saying.

  • Republican Role: Defend Capitalism?

    In an MSNBC story today Senator Jeff Sessions, from our neighboring state of Alabama is quoted:

    Fellow Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions also opposes helping the auto industry. “Once we cross the divide from financial institutions to individual corporations, truly, where would you draw the line?”

    Just a second here. Line? What line? Look in your rear view mirror. That thing way back there, practically out of sight? That’s the “line.”

    You see, congress may have passed a law providing relief to “financial institutions” but the actual money goes to–you guessed it–corporations. But the line was crossed many years ago when the government decided to rescue Chrysler, after which Lee Iacocca was known to run about posing as a champion of capitalism.

    I’m not a purist on capitalism, but I do think we need to realize what we’re actually doing. The most socialist actions we’ve taken recently are not proposing minor chances in the structure of redistribution as provided by the tax code. It’s in these gifts of capital to private industry.

    It’s good that Republicans are working on opposition to this type of activity, though I don’t think they will be very successful. There’s too much fear in our economy right now. I noted during the election that I was in kind of a reverse of the rest of the country. I thought I’d give McCain an edge on the economy and Obama the edge on foreign policy–not that McCain had a large edge.

    So what do I think ought to be done? Personally I would not directly aid these industries at all. We have a problem in this country regarding deficit spending, but most importantly we carry out deficit spending on projects that will not produce anything later. In other words we borrow money from our children and grandchildren with no prospect other than that we will have to borrow some more from their children and grandchildren in order to pay them back.

    But deficit spending is not necessarily bad in the short term. What is bad is when deficit spending becomes essentially eternal, when we will carry on building the deficit even when an emergency is past.

    Two elements would be necessary in any plan for me to feel unqualified support for it. (Note that I’m aware that nobody is waiting for my unqualified support!) First, it would have to accomplish goals that I generally think can be accomplished well by government, such as building infrastructure. (I include basic education as an infrastructure issue, so building schools would be acceptable.) Improving this country’s infrastructure would have the potential of improving our economy down the road, providing those infrastructure projects were well chosen.

    Second, we need a commitment to ending the spending, and making a corresponding reduction in either taxes or in the deficit (depending on how the work was financed) when the mission was accomplished. I have little hope that such a commitment would be made and kept, but since I’m writing almost entirely about fantasies–nobody’s going to do this stuff–why not fantasize about that as well.

    In the meantime we’re going to be stuck with debates on whether we are giving money to “institutions” or “individual corporations” carried out by people who ought to know better. Or perhaps they do know better but don’t feel like admitting it.

  • One Talent Christians

    Scripture:  Matthew 25:14-30, especially 24-27.  Partially cross-posted from Jody’s Devotionals.

    I’m interested in knowing just what meets God’s disapproval. We all have our ideas on this, which often involve truly despicable and perverted behavior according to our cultural standards. But sometimes the Bible will shock us and make us stop and think.

    This thought was first called to my attention some years ago when I was reading 2 Kings 17:2. It says that King Hoshea did evil, but not like the kings before him. King Hoshea wasn’t as bad as his predecessors. Why should this be significant? If you’re interested in knowing what God disapproves of, you should bookmark 2 Kings 17. It’s the chapter that tells of the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel. Hoshea, the one who was not as bad as, was the king when Samaria was conquered and nation went into exile.

    Now Jesus shocks us a bit with a parable. The whole parable runs from Matthew 25:14-30. I’ve just chosen the part when the one-talent servant comes back to report. He’s worried, but at the same time, I think he feels safe. He’s been careful with his master’s money. He hasn’t stolen it. He buried it in the ground and it’s safe. No risk taker here. He didn’t know for sure that he would be successful, so he stayed at home.

    But the master has no good words for his care. He isn’t thankful that his talent has been returned well-preserved and unharmed. He doesn’t commend him for taking the safe route. No! He calls him wicked and lazy. He could have, and should have done something!

    How many of us think like the one-talent man.

    • We could have witnessed for Jesus, but we really don’t know how, and isn’t it better not to prejudice them? When the person who really knows how comes along, they’ll be ready to listen.

    • I have only one dollar in my pocket, or perhaps a bit of change. I’m not going to put it in the offering plate. The clink of the coins or the sight of that one dollar is too embarrassing when others are giving so much. Besides, what is one dollar against the need? So I don’t put that little bit in.

    • A Sunday School teacher is needed, but I’m not going to volunteer because people will think I’m proud and arrogant, and they’ll find out I’m pretty ignorant. The class would be better off without a teacher.

    • I could speak an encouraging word, but I don’t really know the person who needs to hear it, and I might say it wrong. So I keep silent.

    • That person up at the altar needs someone to pray with them, but I don’t want to seem pushy, and besides, any prayer is fine. I’ll just stay right here and nobody will know.

    One talent Christians?or no talent Christians?in our own minds. We think we’re being humble, thoughtful, and careful.

    Unfortunately for us, Jesus thinks we’re being wicked, lazy, and useless.

    This isn’t about doing big things and great things. It’s not about doing what everyone else thinks you should. Other people can burden you with things God hasn’t called you to do. Jesus is talking about the talents he gave you.

    I think that if you listen for the Holy Spirit, you’ll know when you’re truly being wise and careful, and when you’re busy hiding that talent in the earth.

  • Christian Carnival #250 Is Posted

    . . . at Brain Cramps for God.