Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Structure and Literal Translation

    I have found what is probably the best argument for a literal translation. I have certainly used literal translations frequently in commentary, though I favor dynamic equivalence for reading ease.

    But Bob MacDonald, whose blog Bob’s Log has just joined the Philophronos Blogroll, does some extremely interesting work on structure in the Psalms. Now you will get various discussions on this topic scattered through commentaries, but it’s hard to find extended material on the structure of various items of Hebrew Poetry. (Note my own work on the structure of Psalm 104 from a college paper.) Bob has also done some really good charts on the structure of Hebrews, which are on my reading list.

    In any case, there is a level of study that can be facilitated by the kind of translation he does, though most of the people I encounter in Bible studies would not have the patience for it. That’s their loss. I’m happy to try to provide what they are interested in, but there are some wonderful benefits to be gained just from thinking about this kind of work.

    I welcome Bob’s Log to the Philophronos Blogroll.

  • Hearing God’s Voice Redux

    When I was a teenager, I lived in Georgetown, Guyana with my parents who were missionaries. (My father was the Medical Director of Davis Memorial Hospital there, and my mother taught nursing off and on.) During that time I had an opportunity to go visit Kaieteur Falls. In those days one got to the park by flying in an aging DC-3 aircraft that was incredibly noisy We landed perhaps a mile away from the falls (I forget precisely how far–it’s been a couple of years since I was a teen!), the aircraft engines were shut off, but I continued to hear this roaring sound. I thought my ears were just ringing after the long noisy flight, but it turned out to be the sound of the falls in the distance. After some walking I came on a vantage point on the side of the gorge from which I could see the falls. It’s a shear 700 ft drop with additional distance fallen over the rocks. The river comes off of the savannah, and simply falls off a cliff. The sight is awesome. Coming upon it for the first time is a spiritual experience.

    I have tried to describe it a bit in the paragraph above, but I haven’t done that well. I have tried to describe it to others, but I can see in their eyes and hear in their voice that I have failed to truly catch the feeling of that first look at this spectacular falls. It is an experience that I treasure for myself, but that I always convey in a way that is substantially less than what I feel in telling it. I would love to return to Guyana and go see the falls again, experience that again. I suspect, however, that I would still fail to convey it to others.

    I have that same problem in discussing the study of the Bible. Why do I regularly read the Bible in the morning to start my day? Well, I can tell you that my day goes better when I do–and it does. I can tell you that I believe in such activity as a spritual discipline, and I do. I can make the abstract statement that I hear God’s voice in scripture–and I do. But as many times as I’ve talked about it, even to people who are Bible students, I find that rarely does the other person’s face light up, and their words express an understanding of that feeling of spending time with God in the Bible.

    After I had been away from the Lord and the church for 12 years after graduate school, I returned to Bible study. I’d remained acquainted with the scriptures, because I didn’t want to lose my Greek and Hebrew skills. But I had read, though not read the Bible. I went back to study by reading the gospel of Mark. Now I knew what the gospel of Mark said, but as I read it again, I found an excitement, an anxiety for the next chapter. I read the book slowly over the course of Lent. It was like seeing and hearing it all again, but refreshed, as though I had never heard it before. Again, this is an experience that seems to lose incredibly in the telling.

    I took a challenge once from my students in a class. I advocate reading a text multiple times for an overview and to fix the whole picture in your mind. They were finding the passage boring on the second or third pass through. I said I would take any passage, read it through multiple times, and tell them when I ceased to get something new out of it. The chosen passage was the Sermon on the Mount, and I read it 38 times in succession over the course of two weeks. There was some new line that I underlined, or some new marginal note on every reading. I think most serious Bible students will not find that at all remarkable. They’ll realize that on pass 38 I was still only scratching the surface. But there are others whose eyes glaze over when I relate that experience, and I know that yet again, I have failed to communicate what I feel.

    Then yesterday, I dropped by Adrian’s Blog, and found a link to this article by John Piper. Now those of you who have read this blog for some time will know that I have disagreed substantially with many of Adrian’s posts, and a few times John Piper’s name has come up in a negative light over some of the same issues. But as I read that article, the words jumped out at me, and I knew that the experience Piper was describing is essentially the same is mine, but described so much more effectively. That’s the experience of reading God’s word that I keep trying to describe, yet always fail.

    When I linked to the article, I had no idea that there would be the type of controversy that there seems to be over on Adrian’s blog. I wasn’t trying to make theological points or convert those who don’t believe the Bible is inspired. I was certainly not trying to put down anyone who hears God’s voice in other ways (such as on viewing a waterfall or in prayer) or who hear God speak on other subjects. Obviously I cannot in any way speak for John Piper, whose theological positions differ substantially from mine. But I didn’t read any of those negatives into either the article or Adrian’s post.

    There are those who should hear a correction in the article. I frequently encounter people who do not have the patience to seriously study the Bible, yet will take any amount of time and effort to get a “personal word from God.” They’ll travel to conferences, stand in line for hours, seek out “prophetic ministry services,” and buy large numbers of books, but they won’t get serious about the Bible. I don’t know why, though some tell me it’s a lack of time. It’s just too hard. I would hope that such people would hear John Piper’s article as a correction. It’s not that they should seek God’s voice in many different ways, but they need to seek it at the core as well.

    I can’t tell you how to grab hold of the experience, but I do suggest putting in time with the scriptures, taking the time to let the words sink in, and doing so prayerfully. Pray that your mind will be opened, and your will ready to obey what God will show you. I may not be able to fully convey the experience in words, but I will testify that it’s worth it.

  • Hearing God’s Voice

    You know, John Piper has come on my radar on women’s ministry issues, and some of my comments have been pretty negative. But this article on his DesiringGod.org web site is something that resonates completely with me. For my skeptical friends, no, this is not the evidence you keep hoping I’ll provide. It’s simply an example of where someone else’s experience of God parallels mine so completely that I have to simply say “Wow!”

    Let me tell you about a most wonderful experience I had early Monday morning, March 19, 2007, a little after six o’clock. God actually spoke to me. There is no doubt that it was God. I heard the words in my head just as clearly as when a memory of a conversation passes across your consciousness. The words were in English, but they had about them an absolutely self-authenticating ring of truth. I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that God still speaks today.

    . . . continue reading from DesiringGod.org.

    Hat tip: Adrian Warnock’s Blog.

  • What Holds us Together?

    I was reading this story about American Episcopal bishops and their response to the Anglican communion, and it struck a cord in me because of my own experiences. Here we have a conservative Episcopal bishop providing a response to a challenge that primarily resulted from the actions of liberal bishops.

    What is making the Episcopal Church USA hang together? I could, however, just as well ask the same thing about the United Methodist Church, of which I’m a member. Why do we all hang around and duke it out year after year and General Conference after General Conference?

    I recall a study that suggested that there were really four camps in the UMC on the issue of homosexuality. There are those who believe homosexuality is a sin, and who do not believe we can remain as a unified church with disagreement on this issue, there are those who believe homosexuality is sin and yet think we can get along. On the other hand those who believe homosexuality is not a sin are similarly divided between those who think we can co-exist in a denomination that with those who believe the opposite, and those who think we can’t. Yet year after year the debate goes on.

    But I’m wondering again just what keeps us working together. How many of the goals of my local church here in Pensacola match those of more liberal churches in the Northwest, for example? Are we really in community or is it just on paper? Those who know me may be surprised to realize that the congregation of which I’m a member is really quite conservative, for a United Methodist Church. It’s not at the hard right, but it’s right of center. I think I’m somewhere in the center range of United Methodist belief right now myself, and I feel that I could work together with some reservations in most of the churches I know. I’m afraid I would have to make an exception for the one church that I know of that removed the cross as a symbol of death.

    I’m thinking that a great deal of the glue is simply tradition, whether for the Episcopal Church, with a somewhat longer tradition, or the United Methodist Church, which has certainly had enough history to become respectable. Denominational loyalty goes a long way for people who have lived in a community and gone to a particular church for years and years, or been multigenerational members of the same denomination.

    But the current generation isn’t buying that, whether they are liberal or conservative. They want a church community that is going where they are going and in which they can be wholehearted, active, members if they want any church at all. “We’ve always been Methodists” or “We’ve done it that way for years” doesn’t really work for them.

    I know I keep revisiting this topic, but it seems still to be a very live one. The membership of the United Methodist Church seems to indicate that we’re not finding the popular answer to these questions whether or not we are finding the right answer. The Episcopal Church has a similar problem.

    I think we need to find the glue, on a personal, congregational, and denominational level. If we can deal with the glue, we should be able to deal with the rest. For me, the central message of the love of Jesus who came and died for me is a driving force. I’m interested in social activism because I think Jesus called us through the incarnation to the ministry of reconciliation. Simply being redeemed drives me to want to be with others who feel the same way. That drives other issues into the background.

    But I think the question of whether even Jesus and his mission are the central position of our faith is subject to serious debate in many places. I find people both to my right and to my left who, redeemed by the blood of the lamb want to go out and share the gospel through word, deed, and sign as led by the Holy Spirit. Others, well, not so much. I’m not referring to different theories of the atonement. I’m referring to various views that make the atonement less than a central topic.

    If it weren’t for the atonement, I’d be carrying out whatever social action I have through a civic organization. I wouldn’t need a church. A church doesn’t just need to serve the community; they need to serve the community driven by Jesus Christ and filled with his Spirit.

    When I first thought of writing this I was thinking of a kind of moderate split–let’s take everyone who can exist together out of the center instead of continuing to head toward a left-right split. But I don’t think even that would put together the right combination. I’m looking for a community that wants to carry out the “royal law” and do so driven by and in the name of the royal person–Jesus Christ. So far, in spite of disagreements I have found that I can do that in three different United Methodist congregations. The denomination as a whole? Well, not so much.

  • Bibles: Turning a Blessing into a Curse

    I have blogged a number of times on the benefits of having multiple English Bible versions to use in Bible study, especially for the student who does not know Biblical languages. I did so most recently in my post From Word to Study, in my series on word studies.

    Yesterday I got an e-mailed link to a blog post titled all these translations, arrgh in e-mail in which the writer narrated a journey through confusion to some sort of solid ground with reference to Bible study. It’s not his conclusion that causes me to disagree, but rather the fact that he and so many others have to go through such a journey. I do disagree with his preference for formal equivalence versions for study, but that’s another topic. Others may be less careful than he was and get stuck in some very dangerous places.

    Why is it that the blessing of having the Bible readily available in English can so often be turned into a curse. Here are some of the common complaints I hear:

    1. I can’t follow the pastor’s scripture reading. It’s not the same as in my Bible.
    2. I like the rich language of the KJV
    3. The differences in versions causes confusion. Nobody knows what to believe.
    4. There are missing/added passages in that Bible!

    How do we respond to this? Well, it’s valuable to educate people on the process of translation and the reasons why translations differ. I try to do this in my book What’s in a Version?, which is actually simply the lesson materials for a seminar I’ve taught several times. I’m looking at extracting from this a shorter version titled “Choosing a Bible” with additional material on choosing Bibles with study notes, and then expanding the current book, which only has a couple of paragraphs on the major issue of gender language, for example. Such education is good, and of course I like to sell books! 🙂

    But let’s look at these objections and some things we can do to help people understand through what we do in church, Sunday School, and other such studies on a daily basis.

    1. Have a pew Bible.
      We like people to bring their Bibles to church, but the one way to be sure everyone can read together is through use of a pew Bible. Then identify the translation you’re using and let the congregation know that it is in the same version as the one in their pew. This can also help with unison reading and responsive reading. People can still choose to use their own Bibles, but then they’re on their own. Consider also preaching about Bibles, and perhaps also sponsor a missionary who is translating the Bible. Bring your missionary to the church to speak.
    2. It may be difficult to deal with the “rich language” issue. In some churches, the answer may be a Bible that has more majestic language, though in modern English, such as the REB or the NJB. In other cases you may simply have to explain to some members that in order to reach the unchurched who don’t understand “churchy” language, you’re reading from a more modern version. To those who love the KJV, I suggest setting up a small study group of those who are of like mind, and using the KJV in your group. This will have the added advantage of adding a Bible study event to your week.
    3. Differences in Bible translations are generally only a major problem to those who use the proof text method. The best answer to this is to train your congregation (whether you are a pastor or other leader) in how to study and to lead them to base their beliefs on a broader range of scriptures and a more secure foundation of interpretation.
    4. It’s a bit more difficult to deal with the whole passage differences simply because you need to deal with how texts are copied, but again, educating people to broaden their scriptural base will help, because no major doctrines are based solely on disputed passages. Education and study are still the key.

    More important than any of the specifics is to constantly celebrate the availability of the scriptures in your teaching, preaching, and in your daily life. Be aware that even very good technical criticism can drive people from the Bible. My own dislike for the Living Bible had to be sidelined just a bit when I found that it was the first Bible my wife had read, and resulted in her coming to the Lord. What if someone had gotten to her first with a charge of corruption? Criticism of Bible versions is healthy, and often required. There is no Bible version that cannot be justifiably criticized. But such criticism should always be put into context.

    The abundance of Bibles is a blessing–let’s strive to keep it that way!

  • Protecting Rights and Fighting Terrorism

    In a comment on her blog, Laura of Pursuing Holiness drew my attention to this story in the New York Times about the posse comitatus and related material about the insurrection act of 1807.

    First let me note that I consider the posse comitatus to be a good idea, but my primary point in posting about it is not to argue that point. Go ahead and read the article and study that one out for yourself.

    But the thing that worries me primarily about all of these actions is the way that we allow freedoms to be eroded without due consideration in the face of danger. There is a strong potential for trouble in both directions. If those on the libertarian side simply argue in favor of civil liberties without looking at safety issues, then eventually safety concerns will get out of hand, and popular support for certain stronger–and potentially dangerous–measures will continue to grow. We’d like to think that we can somehow get the people of the country to stand on principle though the heavens fall, but in reality, many people will give up a great deal of freedom in exchange for security.

    Amongst those who are not so libertarian (and there are people in both these groups on the left and the right), there is often a tendency to take hold of any rule that looks like it makes the law tougher and imagine that it will, in fact, increase safety. That is also very dangerous. If you pass a tough law, and safety doesn’t result, then there’s an automatic drive to get tougher and tougher until it works. I think this is part of the reasonw why we have in the United States one of the toughest criminal justice systems in the free world, and yet we also have one of the highest crime rates.

    The question, I think, is one of effectiveness. We are coming to believe our own spin. If someone on TV says that a certain action will improve our security enough times, then we become convinced that it will. If a law has a title like “Law to Increase the Security of Air Travel” or “Law to Make Everyone Smarter” we assume that each law will accomplish its goal. But when we look into those laws we may find that very little of the bill actually has to do with the topic.

    One way these things happen is when various projects are offered to particular districts in order to secure votes on some other issue. Such things are happening right now in the Iraq war vote, as Laura notes in another post. (You can follow her links to the source stories.) You might like to think that primarily your congressman is deciding whether to support or oppose a bill on principle, but that is often not the case. Why are congressmen susceptible to such pressure? Primarily because that’s what we, the people, will vote for. The key to having a strong hold on your district is bringing home the bacon, or to be more direct, the pork.

    Now I went on that detour to make this point: Because of this complex system of dealing, and because bills are often passed with many unrleated provisions attached, it is very difficult to tell in detail just what a congressman supports. Voters guides can often be accused of partisanship precisely because they have to pick and choose so carefully. John Kerry got on the wrong side of this one with his “I voted for it before I voted against it” issue on body armor. The issue gets very tangled because of the combinations of provisions.

    It was in just such a way that the provisions that weaken civil liberties in a dangerous way were tucked into a defense appropriations bill, and passed without making congressmen stand up and be counted on the specific issue. Even opponents sometimes give up on such amendments, letting them ride through because you don’t want to hold up a big bill such as defense appropriations over a minor issue. But we elect our congressmen to do just that kind of watching.

    One of the reforms that I support in connection with this issue is the Read the Bills Act (RTBA). You can find a good blog post on the reason for this bill and its intent here. This is not my central point, although it would make it considerably easier to do the things I’m about to suggest. (Hat tip on the prior post to Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

    (more…)

  • Added to my Blogroll

    I’m adding Bob’s Log to the Bible study blogs section of my blogroll. Bob deals with a great deal of Hebrew poetry, especially the Psalms, and is very interested in structure. I think it will be valuable to look over his shoulder as he works on this interesting material.

  • Consider Christianity Week

    Consider Christianity Week is an idea conceived by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., author of the Consider Christianity Series. Note that I don’t come to this event completely without ulterior motives as I publish Elgin’s books and related study guides (Energion Publications).

    For me, Consider Christianity Week is an example of the kinds of principles presented in Philophronos Blogging, and we use a similar key text (1 Peter 3:15-16). This past year, Elgin asked Pacesetters Bible School, Inc., of which I’m president, to provide the umbrella for this event, which we gladly did. Pacesetters is sponsoring a series of events here in the Pensacola, FL area, and you can find a list of those here. In addition, Elgin will be recording some programs for the Running Toward the Goal podcast, also from Pacesetters Bible School.

    If you live in the Pensacola area, or within reasonable striking distance, consider dropping by for one or another of these events. We’re going to have fun and learn a lot, I think. If you’re a Christian blogger, consider posting a blog entry sometime during the coming week (March 25-31) on the essentials of the Christian faith, on Christian unity, or on apologetics. If you will trackback to this post, or send me an e-mail, I’ll be glad to post links to any related posts from here and also from the Pacesetters Bible School newsletter blog. So besides the value of posting on an excellent topic, you get a couple of links.

    We are going to have an online chat with Elgin on the 26th or 27th, sponsored by the Compuserve Religion Forum, but that date and time is not final yet. I will announce it here when it is.

  • Philophronos Blogroll Growing

    Laura has a good post welcoming the latest member of the Philophronos Blogroll, Pen of the Wayfarer. I join in welcoming a new member, and I’d also like to remind readers what this idea is about.

    But first, it is not about hiding your light under a bushel, diminishing your witness, or glossing over what you truly believe. If you look at Laura’s blog and mine you’ll see that she supports the war in Iraq while I oppose it. We haven’t changed our minds, nor do we pretend to think that the other position has more merit than we used to. What Philophronos blogging calls for is that you express your opinions about the facts, and much less about people’s character. Of course there are times when it is appropriate to talk about character, but when you do, it should relate to evidence and not just innuendo.

    There is no Philophonos police force, who read your blog to decide whether you have lived up to some set of rules. Rather, this is something you take on yourself, and your readers get to judge whether you’re living up to your claim. I think there is an enormous amount that we can learn from one another, which is one reason that I read more conservative blogs each day than liberal ones. My moderation tilts a bit leftward, so I balance my reading a bit rightward. And no, I don’t expect that conservative readers will believe that I have given their views adequate attention even so, but that’s not the point. The point is that I do learn from people who disagree with me.

    So if you’re a Christian blogger, consider the Philophronos Blogroll.

    Note: The text Laura quotes, 1 Peter 3:15-16, is also the theme text for Consider Christianity Week, concerning which I will blog next. (See also Consider Christianity Week 2007 on the Pacesetters Bible School, Inc. web site.)

  • Christian Carnival CLXVI

    . . . has been posted. More fun for all of us! Thanks Dory!