I checked my reading level:
Cash Advance Loans
And the sneaky folks who provide the rating also provide the advertising link. I don’t endorse the link, but I leave it there as I imagine that’s how they finance their site…
I just know it couldn’t be because I’m boring!
It’s about time for one of my periodic posts on the King James Version, signaled by comments from a KJV-Only advocate to some earlier posts.
As is usual, the commenter does not interact with anything I say about this issue, but merely affirms the need for a solid foundation, provided in the KJV. In this case, the commenter tells me that the KJV has never been proven wrong. I can hear his question: How can you be so perverse as to fail to give homage to the Bible. To the KJV-Only advocate, Psalm 19:7 does not read “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul” but instead reads “The King James Version is perfect, converting the soul.” This particular commenter didn’t ask me why I hate the KJV, but that usually comes somewhere in the discussion.
Well, the answer is that I do not, in fact, hate the KJV. The title is tongue in cheek, though I wouldn’t be surprised to have it used as evidence of my hate. I also do not hate the Douai-Rheims version, the Geneva Bible, Wycliffe’s translation, or the Latin Vulgate. I just don’t recommend that you use any of those as your primary study Bible nor do I recommend you use them for scripture readings. Some exceptions can be allowed for those who are experts in the appropriate language. I consult all of those except Wycliffe on a fairly regular basis.
The KJV is simply one translation of the Bible. It is special because of the time, place, and circumstances of its translation. It is, perhaps, the single most important accomplishment of English Bible translation, though that would be debatable. Its translators worked out some quite good translation principles, and they worked with substantial literary skill. To one who has any feel for the language of that period it is truly a work of beauty. (I must, however, give a nod to the considerable subjective element in beauty. I find it beautiful.)
Having said that, it is also an historical artifact. It is no longer easily understood by modern audiences. Our knowledge of the Biblical languages has advanced. We have many new manuscripts available, and we also have more advanced tools with which to study them. As a choice to use as a study Bible today, or for Bible readings in church, or as a reading Bible, it is not good for the majority of readers. I would make an exception for that small group of people who have actually mastered that language.
The KJV-Only movement is thankfully getting smaller. It has the effect of turning people away from the Bible rather than toward it. It is largely a means of maintaining personal authority for pastors and teachers who have placed their dependence on a particular English version rather than either going to the original languages, or using multiple translations to help get perspective.
Again, I must make clear that I do not refer in the previous paragraph to people who prefer the KJV while respecting other translations, or to pastors who use the KJV in teaching a congregation where that was the preference. I question the wisdom of such a thing, but I do not call it dangerous. What I call dangerous is the teaching that the KJV is the one, true word of God.
I used to write about this frequently, but I don’t any more, fundamentally because I’ve run out of things to say, and I haven’t seen a new or interesting KJV-Only argument to which I can respond in some years. They just repeat the same thing over and over. I’m more interested now in getting people to move to newer versions that are suitable for outreach, such as the CEV, TNIV, or NCV amongst others.
But having gotten some comments I just had to blow off a bit of steam on the topic. I now return you to your regular programming.
Yesterday I rambled a bit about whether I can properly be called an evangelical, and I must say that I remain uncomfortable trying to make that label fit. At the same time, the majority of the people with whom I work closely find that label acceptable. This isn’t a version of “some of my best friends are evangelicals.” These folks are colleagues, board members of an organization I co-founded, and otherwise very close.
I want to recognize one distinction that is rather important. It was pointed out by two commenters, in slightly different ways. Peter Kirk pointed out that there are certain reformed evangelicals who “are trying to restrict the label ‘evangelical’ to themselves, when historically it never has been so restricted.”
Richard H got more specific, pointing out that Wesleyan evangelicals, which constitutes the group I work with the most, don’t fit the bill. And by the way, I had a good time perusing Richard’s blog a bit last night. There’s some good practical stuff there to check out.
Now I point this all out simply to launch my topic today, because I was led to it by this very discussion, and I think that it’s important to see something that is going on here. First we have a term “evangelical” which becomes just a bit too vague for some, so they look at exclusions. Adrian Warnock wants to include certain charismatics under the label, and would like some maneuvering room. (The link relates to his comments on discernment.) Phil Johnson of Pyromaniacs is less than willing to give him that room, and presents a vigorous attack on charismatic doctrinal views in two parts.
What the two men share in common is that they lead with exclusion, even toward one another. The key test is penal substitution, but that is far from enough for Phil Johnson who, despite expressions of friendship, is pretty vigorous in his language of condemnation of charismatic views. Now I personally don’t have any great problem with TeamPyro’s style, though I find it pretty boring. When you exercise excessive vocabulary enough, it loses any power it may have had. There are also very few ways to actually connect in a discussion, since bear the label “liberal charismatic” fairly well, even though it was bestowed on me as a criticism. (I used it in the subtitle of one of my books.)
Ed Brayton reports on a victory for FIRE against the University of Delaware, which had a diversity training seminar that was mandatory for all students. It was followed up by big brother style watch-dogging.
Just in case some of us might get the idea that it is only right-wing ideologues who would like to indoctrinate people, there is plenty of evidence for the same behavior on the left. Where a particular ideology manages to hold unchallenged authority backed by force, there is an unfortunate tendency to act in this manner.
FIRE is to be congratulated for challenging this type of activity. They are continuing to challenge such practices at the University of Delaware, which, though defeated on this program, has not explicitly agreed to end certain other practices.
[Reflective rambling alert, to those who prefer more substantive stuff.]
I’ve answered this question before, but it was brought back to me over this past weekend when someone who knows me well enough to know better described me as “a solid evangelical.” Say what? He definitely intended it as a compliment, but I was somewhat surprised.
Then I was reading Adrian Warnock’s blog, on which he has begun to work through Piper’s new book The Future of Justification. Adrian says:
That infamous quote from N. T. Wright and his framing of thousands of years of debate about the imparting or imputing of Christ’s righteousness as ‘muddle headed’ is breathtaking. Either Wright is as much of a lone figure reformed as say Martin Luther himself, pointing back centuries before him to another lost truth that makes Luther as much in error as the Pope of his time, OR Wright, however bright a scholar he is, is very wrong. I believe Piper has shown how very wrong Wright is. Join me over the next few days as we explore how he does this.
When I read something like this from Adrian, surely an evangelical, I have to doubt whether I want the label. It’s not that I think Adrian or Piper are being discourteous. It is just that they split doctrinal hairs down so many times. To me, N. T. Wright is conservative. I understand the differences between him and other evangelicals. I just don’t see the critical importance of the difference in the way Adrian states it. (I will certainly be following Adrians comments, though I doubt that I will read the book.)
In fact, I don’t think the Bible itself manifests anything like the unity in describing human sin, redemption, atonement, and God’s expectations of people that appears in this very tense reformed evangelical theology. N. T. Wright is not, in my view, all that opaque. He’s extremely thorough with impeccable scholarship. And as for Martin Luther, while I appreciate some of his reform efforts, I truly do not think he said the last word on understanding Paul.
Reformed interpretation of Paul has gotten muddle headed and it has done so simply because theological propositions have been given preeminence over an exegesis of the text. In addition, an assumption that the Bible teaches a single theology tends to paper over the differences.
Labels are such slippery things. Any label that manages to acquire a positive connotation will also tend to spread, as people want to claim the label, even when they are not in the center of the definition. “Fundamentalist” has had a bit of a negative connotation, and so it hasn’t become nearly so diluted. The label “orthodox” (lower case ‘o’) is generally very positively perceived in Christian circles. It’s definition started with those who toed the doctrinal line put out by the church councils, and these days very few Christians want to be called “unorthodox.” I like to say that being “orthodox” means you can say the apostles creed without crossing your fingers. Trouble is, of course, that people have very different tolerances for reinterpretation before they feel obligated to cross their fingers.
In my previous answer to this question I mentioned the evangelical commentators on Daniel I have found, including Earnest Lucas who wrote the Daniel volume in the Apolos Old Testament Commentary series. Lucas maintains that one can assert Biblical inerrancy and also a 2nd century date for the book of Daniel. When I mentioned this to an evangelical friend, he said, “Well, that series is published by InterVarsity Press and they’re pretty much just another liberal publisher any more.” Note that Lucas does not exclusively affirm a 2nd century date, but simply asserts that either is possible for one who believes in inerrancy.
So an evangelical commentary on Daniel can assert a 2nd century date, and InterVarsity press can be considered liberal. Such are the wanderings of labels over the conceptual landscape.
Yesterday I wrote about the significance of the theory of evolution for the view of evil, particularly whether physical death is the result of human evil. Understanding Christian views on this topic requires some knowledge of the doctrines of creation and the fall, and secondarily of redemption.
One of the most contentious issues in the creation-evolution controversy amongst Christians involves specifically the creation of human beings. When surveys ask whether humans were specially created by God recently (6-10 thousand years), they may get skewed results because of this. There are a number of Christians who believe the universe and the earth are old, and that life on earth is old and may well have developed via evolutionary processes, but believe that human beings are specially created. Thus, they would affirm that all life is related except for human beings.
This may seem very odd from a scientific point of view, but I’m dealing here with theological objections to evolution. While I’m primarily presenting this material as background for understanding the previous objection, there is also the simple objection that because of their special place in God’s plan, human beings must be a special creation. This objection is often misunderstood, and is also often misstated. The major theological problem is not whether the first human was directly formed from dust rather than developed from a prior form, but more that the development must be special and a direct intervention of God. (Note that this is not my view, but rather I’m trying to represent a range of views that require a separate, special creation.)
There are three elements here. First is the creation of human beings, however accomplished. What was the moral state of these creatures, and how did they attain “the image of God?” Second is the fall. Assuming that humanity original carried God’s image and was on good terms with God (as presented in Genesis), what happened and when? Finally, these two elements will combine to impact one’s view of redemption. The result of redemption depends on what the original state actually was.
I’m not going to try to name these views. I’m going to describe them and present them in three columns. These views range from a fairly literal one (but not necessarily young earth), to a completely evolutionary view.
| Element | View 1 | View 2 | View 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Creation | Human beings are specially created, either separately or individually, or on a plan similar to existing apes. They are formed precisely according to a detailed, divine plan. | Human beings evolve physical, but receive or become a soul through action of God at a specific point. At that point they are morally innocent and what God would want them to be, even though their bodies are the result of evolutionary processes. | Any self-aware, intelligent creature should be regarded as “in the image of God.” The means of forming such a creature are irrelevant. Such a creature would be innocent, but also morally limited based on heredity and environment. |
| Fall | The fall resulted from a specific violation of a specific, known command of God. Eating the fruit may be symbolic, but it is symbolic of a particular event that occurred chronologically after the creation of human beings, i.e. it is not a part of their state as physical creatures. | As a general rule, similar to the first view, though the specific nature of the rebellion may not be specified so precisely. | The fall expresses something inherent in the state of a finite creature. There may be a moment of stepping away from innocence, but this is more a matter of recognizing and consciously making moral choices than specifically violating a specific command or even rebelling generally against divine authority. |
| Results | Physical death resulted from the fall. Young earthers will generally hold that all physical death results from this act. Old earthers may believe simply that human beings suffer death because of the rebellion. | Physical death is simply part of the state of being a physical creature. Creatures die; humans are creatures. There is inherent in our condition a separation from our spiritual home with God. | |
| Redemption | Involves return to the originally created state via God’s creative power. (The first two views will overlap here. | Involves a return to the original state, only better, with a spiritual body. | Redemption allows the spiritual side of humanity to connect with the creator in eternal life, which is a gift given by God. What is meant by “eternal life” varies in how it will be interpreted and what that state of being will be. |
I believe that almost any actual theologian will vary from any single column. My hope is that you will think of a continuum starting with the first view and ending with the third for each element and realize that some mixing and matching will occur. These are just summaries of some of the possibilities. I’m trying to keep this short and thus have not provided all the Biblical support for each position.
If I generate enough interest in my own mind or on the blog, I may write some more on the Biblical and theological implications of each of these points.
Through my watch on the lectionary tag on Technorati, I found another excellent example of finding a new way of presenting and/or thinking about a parable. In this case it’s in a sermon about the Pharisee and the Publican, and the illustration has a Red Sox fan and a Yankee fan go to Cooperstown . . .
For the rest you need to check out this sermon (Demonizing of Yankees) by Rev. Mindi on Rev-O-Lution.
It’s not just this particular presentation I hope you see. It’s the whole idea of finding new ways to present the parables, so that people identify with them and get involved in thinking about them.
. . . at Ancient Hebrew Poetry. I don’t have a post in there this time, but that’s not a complaint–I can’t think of what I’d nominate in this case. I will certainly get some blogging fodder from reading the posts. There are certainly a substantial number of excellent biblioblogs available.
Speaking of which, John continued his postings with things he left out of the first one and then a map of the world of Bible bloggers. The latter is especially useful.
Enjoy!
David (Lingamish) tagged me with a meme I’m happy to get on board with. He asks that I name five up and coming blogs. The problem is there are so many. I’m going to focus on ones that have caught my attention recently. I’m late on this, but I have a good excuse–I was coordinating a conference over the weekend, and then I was recovering from coordinating the conference!
Well, those will do for now. Hopefully this will help alleviate David’s boredom.
Just a couple of really interesting things I saw, but don’t have time to comment on fully:
