Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Life of a Rumor

    One of the nastiest sins you can have break out in your church is gossip. Unfortunately, it’s also one of the most common–more common than the common cold. I have seen church congregations broken apart by gossip, and nobody involved thought they were doing anyone any harm.

    Excuses for spreading rumor and innuendo vary. Sometimes people just don’t see the harm. Sometimes they believe the rumor is true. Other folks just can’t help it; the rumor is too juicy and they just have to tell someone.

    If another person draws their attention to it, there are plenty of excuses. Here are some samples:

    “I’m just doing my duty as a church leader to find out the truth.” This one works even if you’re on the hospitality team, or you help park cars. You’re still a leader, right?

    “I’m not spreading the rumor. I’m trying to control it and let people know how unreliable it is.” OK!

    “I’m not talking about _____ (the subject of the rumor). I’m dealing with the people who spread it.” Well, no problem then!

    But my favorite is: “I’m just telling you so you can pray for _____ more specifically.” I’ll make sure to pass on your inside information to God in my next prayer in case he missed it.

    There are a few malicious tale bearers, but most people simply talk, and they never realize what they are doing. But the spread of a rumor can do a great deal of damage. Generally also the rumor becomes more believable the more people who repeat it. It’s not evidence. It’s how many times you heard it. By the time you get to the people talking about the people talking about the rumor, nobody knows where it started, and it has a life of its own.

    Similar things happen in the media, I think, and with similar effect. A newspaper publishes a story that may (or may not) have inadequate support. Then we get the media outlets who spend their time talking about how nasty it was for the first outlet to release the story, but the general public simply hears the rumor again and again. Multiple experts get on the various talk shows to comment on whether the original story should have been published. Then more experts talk about whether we should be talking about the story. Before long viewers, readers, and listeners are no longer sure just what the story was.

    Finally, of course, bloggers like me start talking about the media that talked about the media that talked about the media that originated the story . . .

    It’s driven by the fact that we, the public, will watch this kind of thing. It’s a human thing, just like gossip in a church community. If we don’t want it, we’re going to have to learn to change the channel, read a different web page, listen to a different radio station, or perhaps simply go and research the facts as best we can.

    Let me recommend two sites I’ve been using more and more: PolitiFact and FactCheck.org. We need to be aware that even they can be wrong, but looking for the facts is a number of steps above simply chewing on the rumors.

  • Search for the Historical Simon Peter II

    This post continues from this one and is part of my series blogging through Ben Witherington’s book What Have They Done with Jesus?

    This chapter continues the theme of the previous chapter. Witherington is creating profiles of the various claimed eyewitnesses in the New Testament and then using them to tell us about Jesus. With certain assumptions, this isn’t a bad plan. It makes for engaging reading. The problem for me is that I don’t accept all of the assumptions he uses, and without those, the procedure can look fairly silly.

    If I’m not convinced on the face of it that the book of Matthew, for example, is a totally reliable witness to the life of Jesus, then how will I be convinced that I know Peter based on that book, and that I can rely on the testimony of this “Peter reconstruction” to establish facts about Jesus.

    I should make one proviso here. Witherington has a number of chapters, most of the book, to go, and may do a better job of establishing the historical basis for accepting the source documents as reliable. I simply don’t see that he has done so yet.

    To illustrate my point, let me refer to pages 82-87 which discusses the incident with Cornelius. Early in this process Witherington makes this statement:

    … We can pretty much rule out the possibility that he made it up: it is hard to imagine Luke, who idolized and was a one-time companion of Paul, making up a story about Peter being the first missionary to the gentiles. … (p. 83)

    Now I see several problems here. Witherington makes the assumption that Luke-Acts was written by the companion of Paul, which implies a certain interpretation of the “we” passages in Acts. That’s a good possibility, and I’m inclined toward it myself, but it is not a consensus position. But then he makes the assumption that Luke would want to make Paul the initial apostle to the gentiles. I think even if the first assumption is good, Luke (whoever he was) shows that he wants to connect Paul more closely with the Jerusalem church than Paul does himself. What better way to legitimize Paul’s mission than to claim that Peter actually opened the door?

    I see a much more favorable view of Jerusalem in Acts than there is in Paul’s epistles, and this would suggest that whether or not Luke idolized Paul (an uncertain statement), he apparently also wanted to present Paul as being on good terms with the Jerusalem church.

    There is a subtheme of these chapters that I do appreciate a great deal, and that is the place of women in the early church. Luke-Acts is a good place to find this theme presented. One shouldn’t be surprised that we occasionally have to read between the lines. For those who pay attention it is clear that Luke is giving a greater place to women and to non-Jews. Witherington tracks this theme very carefully.

    My negative comments should not be taken as meaning I’m not enjoying the book. Witherington writes quite well and it’s very interesting following his logic. As a presentation of one way of providing a profile of Jesus, it’s quite good and thorough. Thus far it has been instructive and interesting.

  • KJV Only and Pisseth Against the Wall

    I found these two videos after reading this post. I post these because they are so humorous in the way they proudly and piously display extreme ignorance.

    First, 7 common sense reasons why we should never leave the KJV BIBLE. What is even more humorous about this is that it is listed under the category “education.”

    Then the one with preaching about “pisseth against the wall”, who is “Pastor Steven L Anderson, pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, expounds on the King James Bible phrase, “him that pisseth against the wall.” (according to his info on YouTube.)

    If you can’t self-fisk these, see my FAQ on Bible Translations for a good start. You can also check out the pamphlet I edited, What About the KJV?.

    Oops! Forgot the hat tip: One Thing I Know

  • More Positive Note on New Bible Project

    Peter Kirk has a more positive view of the new Bible translation project I blogged about yesterday, though he also hedges that positive view a bit. I think he makes some good points, and if things go in that positive direction, I believe I would alter my own attitude.

    I would suggest also reading the comments to his post. With reference to both comments, I am always amazed at people who talk about “accuracy” apart from considerations of the audience. Accuracy is not something that exists in a vacuum. A text must be translated so as to have an impact on and be understood by a particular audience. This isn’t either/or. It must be both/and.

    I use the metaphor of the one-ended telephone cord, which I talk about here on my Threads blog, and also in my book When People Speak for God.

  • Testimony – John 4:39-42

    There’s a short sequence of thoughts here at the end of the story of the Samaritan woman (Woman at the Well) that makes an important point about testimony. Many Christians are hesitant to share their testimony. One of the reasons is that they’re afraid they don’t know enough. But you don’t have to know very much to express what has happened to you personally.

    The woman at the well gives her testimony that Jesus had told her everything she had done (John 4:39). The same verse notes that many believed because of her testimony. But what did her testimony accomplish? Did it, by itself, convince people to believe in Jesus?

    In verse 42 we get the testimony of the people afterward. They have come and seen Jesus because of her testimony, and now their belief no longer rests on her words, but on their own knowledge and experience of Jesus. The weight is off the woman who originally gave testimony. Her testimony didn’t need to do anything more than bring the people who heard it to Jesus.

    That’s all our own testimony needs to do. We can be joyful when people come back and say, “It’s no longer because of what you said that I believe. I’ve seen and experience Him for myself!”

  • Threads Post on KJV Only

    I have posted a couple of YouTube embeds and some short comments on the KJV-Only preaching on my Threads blog.

  • New Life Version: Simplified Vocabulary

    One way to get my checkbook or bank card out nearly every time is to present me with a substantially new edition, or a new translation of the Bible. A substantial part of my bookshelves is occupied with these various versions and editions. The majority of them even get read on a reasonably frequent basis.

    I picked up a copy of the New Life Version (NLV) several months ago, and even added it with very brief notes to my Bible Version Selection Tool. Today I grabbed it for my daily lectionary reading, in which I’m reading the texts for the third and fourth Sundays in Lent for cycle A. This is a good way to improve my impression of the version.

    A key goal of this version is simple vocabulary and readability especially by those for whom English is a second language. My overall impression is that the task of simplifying the vocabulary is well done. At the same time, I thought that the syntax was not nearly as well done. I don’t mean it was choppy or too simple stylistically, but often excellent vocabulary choices were embedded in difficult sentences. Perhaps some folks with more experience in English as a second language teaching or related work might comment. Are the examples I provide below actually easy to follow? In any case, the simplified vocabulary is quite worthwhile.

    Two additional points that do not relate to either of these two issues. The common standard of translating YHWH as LORD is abandoned. It is translated Lord throughout. That probably is in accord with the desire to simplify. Also, poetry is not broken out into lines. That is also probably part of the simplification.

    First, here are some examples of simplified vocabulary. Note that I will present these in two columns, with the more common rendering first. The “more common” rendering is in no way intended as a standard, nor as a better translation. It’s just for comparison. Note also that the reference given is just as an example. The word may be used in many other verses.

    Common Term NLV Term Reference
    murmur or complain argue Exodus 17:2
    Stone throw stones at Exodus 17:4
    Rod special stick Exodus 17:5
    Sacrifice give a gift 1 Samuel 16:2
    Anoint pour oil on 1 Samuel 16:13
    Kneel get down on ___ knees Psalm 95:6
    Wilderness place where no people live Psalm 95:8
    Ancestors early fathers Psalm 95:9*

    * I have to wonder about this one. It makes sense to me, but does it work in the English as a second language setting? I can only assume the translators are better acquainted with the need than I am.

    Second, syntax issues. The following sentences seem more clumsy than necessary to me:

    He called the name of the place Massah and Meribah because of the arguing of the people of Israel, and because they tested the Lord, saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?” — Exodus 17:7

    In this case the normal pattern of shortened sentences seems to be abandoned, and the syntax seems much more complex to me than the vocabulary.

    The Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you be filled with sorrow because of Saul, since I have turned away from him being king over Israel? — 1 Samuel 16:1

    I would note particular “turned away from him being king.” I wonder how easily speakers of English as a second language would understand it. I have to think about it myself.

    I was angry with the people of that day for forty years. — Psalm 95:10

    I hate putting this one down because I’m not sure how I would rephrase it, but again, I’m not sure it is all that easy to read.

    They said to the woman, “Now we believe! It is no longer because of what you said about Jesus but we have heard Him ourselves. We know, for sure, that He is the Christ, the One Who saves men of this world from the punishment of their sins. — John 4:42

    This one could do with some more use of the short sentences used elsewhere in the NLV, or so it seems to me.

    I think that gives enough of the flavor. This version seems to me to make an excellent effort to fill a need, but I’m not sure that the syntax doesn’t work against the valuable work on simplifying the vocabulary.

  • The Search for the Historical Simon Peter

    I’m continuing reading and blogging through Ben Witherington’s book What Have They Done with Jesus?, and have just finished chapter 3. This chapter discusses the person of Jesus. I would like to remind readers again that I’m blogging the experience of reading the book and not reviewing it. Thus my impressions result from where I am in reading at the moment. (The previous post in this series is here.)

    One might get the idea that Dr. Witherington is simply telling the story of Jesus and his companions as it can be extracted from the canonical materials. A large portion of both chapters 2 and 3 simply catalog what we have and add some speculation–educated speculation, but nonetheless still speculation.

    What seems to be missing here is the reasoning behind historical conclusions about these individuals. Toward the end of each chapter, however, we begin to get the point. Witherington is developing a profile of the people who are recorded as eyewitnesses to the life and most importantly (I believe) the resurrection of Jesus.

    Witherington is not a fundamentalist, and deals with the text that would not be possible under most common definitions of inerrancy. On page 59, for example, he says:

    . . . In this narrative [the call of Simon] the first words Jesus is said to have spoken to Simon are “You are Simonson of John; you shall be called Cephas.” It is likely that the Fourth Evangelist, in order to introduce his dramatis personae up front, has moved this tradition to this spot, for Simon received this nickname much later in the ministry, according to the synoptics. . . . (What Have They Done With Jesus?, p. 59)

    I would note two things. From the point of view of more liberal scholarship, this places a greater historical weight on the fourth gospel than many would place on it. From the point of most who accept inerrancy, it would have John either in error or lying, because Simon receives the name “Peter” at a different point in history. (Some could quite comfortably accommodate this issue by appealing to the literary genre and noting that readers probably did not expect chronological accuracy in such a document.

    Thus Witherington is by no means in the hard-line conservative camp that essentially constructs a history of Jesus based on harmonization of every detail of the gospel accounts.

    He carries on with a considerable discussion. Many readers will be interested in his discussion of “upon this rock” from Matthew 16, which Witherington does believe apply to Peter, but in particular to Peter who is confessing. He suggests that while in that text it particular it may have meant Peter himself, it can be extended to all those who make a similar confession.

    So why are we going into all this detail with regard to Peter? It is because of this question that I’ve titled my blog post as I have. Witherington moves from the discussion of who Peter is historically to making the assertion that Peter was in a position to know what Jesus confessed about himself in his lifetime. Thus he says:

    . . . These stories about interconnections within the inner circle must make some sense, and they bear a telling witness to the fact that Jesus was seen and confessed as a messianic figure both before and after his death on a cross. No one knew this better than Peter, and no one would have been more vehement in rebuttal of the suggestion that Jesus had not presented himself in an exalted and messianic ight during his ministry. He became a shepherd of Jesus’s flock for a good reason: he knew the Story, he belieed in the Christ, and he accepted his commission. In the next chapter we will see what the post-Easter Peter has to say to us about these things. (ibid. 76)

    Update: It looks like my conclusion is missing. Thus far I see substantial profiles of claimed eyewitnesses presented without sufficient basis for the claim that the canonical gospels themselves are historically reliable at this level of detail. I’m hoping this will be covered further down the line.

  • A United Methodist Bible?

    A friend e-mailed me notice of a new Bible translation project which is being sponsored by a subsidiary of Cokesbury, which in turn is associated with the United Methodist Church. (He also passed me a link to this post at Metacatholic.)

    There is a basic outline of the purposes and intentions of this translation at Our New Bible. I can only hope that they translate with greater clarity than they use in their writing. (And no, my writing would not provide the clarity necessary in a translation that aims for an eighth grade reading level.) I noted the same paragraph that Metacatholic quoted:

    A new translation must attend to evocative language that is more engaging emotionally than precise, systematic syntax.

    Does this sentence actually mean anything? I am not too certain just what the translators are trying to say. Far be it from me to oppose a translation project, but I certainly hope that the cost of this translation has been well considered, and that the translation will effectively meet a real need that current translations do not.

    One further note: I am aware that the translation committee will be ecumenical, which I applaud, but the translation committee is sponsored by a denominationally connected group, albeit one that is involved with interdenominational curriculum development.

  • 10 Psalms Not Heard (much) in Modern Worship

    Don has a post titles 10 Tough Psalms for Worship Songs that deserves some serious thinking. I relate it to my recent post Psalm 95 and 81: Interrupting Praise with Prophecy?. Do we tend to censor the more challenging material in our worship?