Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Author Related

Posts that relate in some way to my books. Excludes administrative posts and most reviews of other people’s books.

  • Paul not Lucid

    I must confess that quite frequently when I read J. K. Gayle’s writing, I’m quite mystified.  But today I was able to interact with what he wrote more effectively in his post Exactly what Paul Meant by “Sarx”.  Somewhere around the middle of that post he quotes C. S. Lewis from Reflections on the Psalms (p. 113 in his edition):

    Descending lower, we find a somewhat similar difficulty with St. Paul. I cannot be the only reader who has wondered why God, having given him so many gifts, withheld from him (what would to us seem so necessary for the first Christian theologian [albeit a formidable Jew]) that of lucidity and orderly exposition. (Reflections on the Psalms, page 113)

    He quotes more, and all of it is worthwhile.  I think there is a balance here in that it is easy either to start to ignore precision in translation and simply be sloppy, while at the same time it is easy to get arrogant.  I’m generally concerned when I hear pastors, especially those whose expertise in Greek is questionable, use the phrase “what the Greek really means here is …”  This generally means that we’re going to hear the preacher’s translation substituted for that of the committee that produced whatever version their reading as though somehow the individual preacher in the minimum time required for translation has earned the right to claim a translation that is “what the Greek really means.”

    I certainly feel free to disagree with translation committees or other translators or interpreters.  But this usage in sermons tends to suggest that one has the inside track on what a Bible writer was saying and that others, often much more qualified, have simply missed the boat.

    My impression on reading The Message was that Peterson very frequently manages very good translations of metaphors and imagery, yet when I read the teachings of Jesus, I thought he made them clearer than they were, so to speak.  Sometimes he took the sharp edges off and made them more friendly.  There is a point to leaving a difficult passage difficult.  At the same time it is much too easy to call a passage difficult because one is struggling to find an expression, and thus make the passage more difficult in translation than in the original.

  • On Translating to be Understood

    One of the experiences that shaped my approach to Biblical languages and Biblical studies occurred late in my first year of Greek.  The teacher was Lucille Knapp at Walla Walla College (now Walla Walla University), and she really enjoyed Greek and was quite expressive.  She kept us on our toes.  I was translating a verse for the class and used the word “propitiation.”

    “Henry!” she exclaimed.  “I am not teaching you to translate Greek into Latin!”

    An argument amongst the students ensued regarding how we should translate that word.  Some students, myself included, felt that people could just learn what propitiation meant, since we couldn’t think of a good single word in English to replace it.  The problem was, to our shame, that we really couldn’t do a good job of defining it either.  For us, the word “propitiation” was a black box.  It filled a space, but we didn’t really have it integrated into our theology enough to explain it rather than just repeating it.

    I thought about that a great deal after that class and it changed my whole idea of what “translation” means as well as what it means to express theology clearly and effectively.  C. S. Lewis once suggested that all ministerial candidates be required to pass a test involving translating a substantial work of theology (I’d suggest a nice passage from Karl Barth!) into language that their congregation would be able to grasp.  I think both ideas are related.  You haven’t translated if you haven’t managed to make the text comprehensible in the target language.  You haven’t preached or proclaimed the gospel unless you have made it understood.

    I was launched into this little note by reading the following today from Dave Black’s blog:

    In the course of teaching Greek (both classical and Koine) the past 34 years I’ve found that translating Greek into English is a very different enterprise from understanding what the text means. A translation may at times sound very erudite, but to be relevant and beneficial the text must be understood — and then applied. One of my greatest challenges as a teacher has been to get my students to see the need to give up theological jargon when translating from Greek into English. If we can use simpler and clearer words to express the truths of Scripture, then by all means let’s do so. Why, for example, should we render Rom. 12:11 “distribute to the needs of the saints” when “share what you have with God’s people who are in need” will do the job and is much clearer? Or why should we insist that the purpose of pastor-teachers is “to equip the saints for the work of the ministry” when we can say “to prepare God’s people for works of service”? If all we do is parrot the standard English versions while translating from English to Greek, I’m afraid we’ll end up with nothing but another secret religious society. If insisting on the use of theological jargon actually helped people to become more obedient to the Word of God, I’d say do it at all costs. But is there any evidence that it does?

    To admit this inadequacy honestly can be very intimidating to the teacher. It means, in fact, that we can no longer be content to offer courses in Greek exegesis that fail to include serious self-examination. Somehow we need to move our students from a mere grammatical approach to the text to one that involves them deeply in the Christian pilgrimage. What is the purpose of exegeting Paul’s Christ-hymn in Phil. 2:5-11 if we, the translators, are not willing to model the upside-down kingdom of God in our own lives? Strangely, I am discovering that more and more of my students are asking the “so what” question of everything they are learning. And I am more and more convinced that the joy of living the Gospel in our lives is what should drive the exegetical process in the first place. I may be wrong, but when we talk about “seminary education,” I think we are talking about training students for the adventure of living the Christian life in the real world by doing what is important in God’s eyes. I have found, to my horror, that it is far easier to simply talk about the text than to seek to live it out. Look at the New Testament writers like Paul or John who wrote and taught in the crucible of actual missionary experience. They were willing to follow the Lord Jesus even at the risk of death. They didn’t just talk about the truth, they lived it.

    Just so!

    If Paul says I am to share what I have with God’s people who are in need, I’d better be doing just that. This pedagogical insight may belong in a fortune cookie, but it’s the best I can do.

  • The Age of the Earth – Not a Minor Difference

    In the good old days when I used to have a seminar on this topic that I used in churches, I had an overhead transparency that showed the age of the earth (along with some of the various geological time periods). This was represented by a line that went the length of the slide. Beside it was the young age, represented by a dot.

    The BioLogos Foundation Science and the Sacred blog has something about this today. It’s not a minor difference, explainable by slightly different interpretations. It’s a massive. fundamental difference.

  • Why Democracy Fails

    In Preserving Democracy, Elgin Hushbeck quotes Alexander Fraser Tytler:

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. (quoted on pp. 26-27)

    I thought about that quote today when I read the somewhat deceptively titled story Current Mood Toward Congress: Throw The Incumbents Out. I don’t mean that CQ Politics intentionally wrote a deceptive title. Headlines always miss part of the article. The title refers to the part of their survey results that indicates that 53% of voters do not want to see the majority of members of congress reelected next year.

    The next paragraph has the really interesting result, and I knew it was coming, because I’ve seen this before. A statistically similar number, 52%, do like their own representative.

    Now unlike poll results that indicate that people hold contradictory views, and there are some of those, I think this points to a different problem. Let me use my own congressional district as an example. Here in the Florida’s 1st congressional district there is one issue on which any candidate who wishes to be elected must take a particular stand–keeping “our” military bases here.

    Further, this favors the incumbent absolutely, because he will undoubtedly be able to argue that his seniority makes him better able to protect those bases from any closure. Now I’m not necessarily saying that the bases here are not well placed. But that wouldn’t matter to the voters. The bases are well placed because they are a substantial part of the economy of this area. If our congressman were to become completely convinced that some substantial base or even a facility on a base should be closed, he would be committing political suicide by advocating it.

    When somebody else’s congressman makes that argument for the bases in his district, of course, the voters in this district are not so happy.

    It’s less obvious sometimes in other areas, because the projects and the money are spread over a wider variety of locations and types of activity. But a congressman must produce stuff for the voters or he’ll get voted out. That’s why we hear a great deal about reform out of congress, but we aren’t likely to get reform that prevents members of congress from doing nice things for their districts.

    The same problem continues more broadly. Rather than admitting that smaller government will have to provide less services, many people on both sides of the aisle like to argue that somehow increasing the efficiency of government and reducing waste will let us keep the services, reduce (or not increase) taxes, and still receive more.

    Unfortunately, we always count chickens before they’re hatched in this case. A current good example is health care. Now I think we do have a problem, and that we are not a nation that can actually refuse basic care to our citizens, whatever the economic problems. Currently, we require emergency rooms to provide stabilizing care, for example, which spreads the cost to those who pay. But in writing health care plans, everyone counts savings that they believe they will get.

    Those deficit projections about health care? They are guesses. They’re making assumptions about what various options will do to prices, and how much they can save.

    I could do this with my family budget. Let’s say I want to buy a car today, but I lack $100 of the monthly payment. In order to justify my deficit spending to my wife, I tell her that we’ll get $100 out of the grocery budget. (Since I do the grocery shopping, I might get by with that–or not!) I would say that by saving $25 per week on our grocery shopping we can afford the new car.

    Now there’s two ways to go about this. First, I could find and test ways of saving the money and then test them for a month or so. Can I reduce our grocery bill enough by buying bulk, making better use of the freezer, and so forth? If I go out and test this, and only buy the new car after I know it will work, I’m being responsible. On the other hand, I could simply guess that I can manage the savings, go buy the car, and then find out.

    In the case of health care, we guess certain savings can be achieved. Bluntly, the current proposals are so complex, I really can’t tear them apart on that point because I would have to give up my income producing work (and see what that would do to my budget!) in order to have time to follow it all. I do know, however, that advocates of the public option tend to assume that it will force the general price of insurance down, using the very capitalist argument that the public option will involve an increase in competition.

    Whether you buy that argument or not (and I don’t), the fact is that we haven’t actually seen it work. Advocates of health care reform something like what we have proposed are probably annoyed to have this sort of thing pointed out. After all, we need reform, so we all need to be as positive as possible. Opponents will crow by saying that this shows that the plan won’t work. The bottom line is that the voters are being promised something, but are not truly being told the cost. Would they support it if they truly knew the cost? I don’t know, but we’re not going to get to find out.

    I don’t regard this as a partisan issue. Republicans tend to take a similar approach on defense. We can plan strategy and buy equipment because we need whatever it is, but talking about cost-benefit is often regarded as anti-military and anti-defense. But we need to have good cost-benefit analysis, testing, and most importantly, we need to change our strategy, whether on domestic or foreign policy based on actually observing the results.

    Such a thing will only happen if voters demand it. I think that’s unlikely, because I think voters would rather hope that one or another politician can manage to come through and produce something from nothing.

  • The Real War on Christmas

    I received an e-mail from the AFA giving me the wonderful news that the governor of Kentucky has backed down on calling the Christmas tree in the state capitol a “holiday tree” and will call it a Christmas tree. In order to help this happen elsewhere, I’m told to buy packets of buttons, wear them, and get all my friends to wear them. There are even church packs and a display pack of 250 buttons.

    At the same time I am already seeing Christmas advertising on TV and hearing it on the radio. I understand the reasoning behind it. After all, I’m a businessman too, and there will be lots of Christmas buying. I can’t help but hope that some people will choose various books offered by my company as Christmas presents. But that is a commercial desire related to a commercial holiday.

    Some Christians feel that there is a war on Christmas, and that this war involves rules requiring store clerks or government officials to wish people happy holidays rather than merry Christmas or the removal of creche displays from public parks. If I could steal an idea from C. S. Lews (Screwtape Letters) and think like a demon for a moment, I would regard this as an excellent diversionary attack.

    Before D-Day in World War II the Germans were convinced that the allied landings would come somewhere around the Pas de Calais. The distance was shorter, the logistics would be easier, and it made a great deal of strategic sense. The allies went to some trouble to foster this impression, even creating a fake army that consisted merely of tents and communications gear that simulated an invasion in preparation. Because the Germans were convinced that the real attack would come somewhat to the north of where it did, they delayed in committing their mobile reserve (panzers), much to the benefit of the allied forces.

    While we’re worried about losing the external trappings of Christmas, such as public trees and manger displays, the real war on Christmas is practically won already. Christmas has almost nothing at all to do with Jesus. This has been my opinion for many years. Christmas as celebrated in America, even in most of our churches, is about us and our economic prosperity, not about Jesus and his good news.

    Studying the liturgical year has just emphasized this to me more, and now that I’m teaching a series on the gospel of Luke for a Sunday School class, I find it rubbed in my face. The advent comes at a time of great trouble and need. There is long expectation, hope kept alive through times of hardship, and recognition of need. When God’s gift comes it does not look like what the world sees as success or greatness. The birth of Jesus is not a commercial success. God gives himself to us at the time of our greatest need. Receiving the gospel message is like a reenactment of this in miniature. The wise men come and give gifts to the king in the manger, though he hasn’t asked. Shepherds worship him. The babe in the manger is the center of God’s activity, even though the world around hardly notices.

    This is almost totally unlike our Christmas celebrations in the church or in our homes. Oh, we certainly do give something to others. There will be gifts sent to children who will not otherwise have a Christmas and food packages passed to people in need. But let’s face it. Most of our money will be spent on us. Christmas will not look largely like a spiritual experience. We’ll start celebrating it weeks early even in church. We’ll skip over the advent expectation and go straight to the Christmas celebration.

    And that celebration will mostly be about us. It will largely be a commercial holiday for us. The emphasis on Christmas, such as it is, will not be a witness to Jesus, but rather to “Christianity – the Brand.”

    The war on Christmas is going rather badly for us. Perhaps we should quit bothering about the wrong war, and save whatever money we were going to spend on “Merry Christmas” buttons to use to help others. If you don’t have any idea where to give it, I’d be happy to make some suggestions.

  • How Not to Make Your Point

    In his post next time, don’t invite the baptists, Bruce Alderman provides a link to a very unfortunate case in which a Lutheran pastor is put down by a local Baptist church because she is a woman.

    Let me note here that I am personally acquainted with Baptists who oppose women in pastoral ministry and are quite courteous. They have no problem recognizing what’s essential for interdenominational fellowship and what is not, nor do they have a problem conveying their views in a Christlike manner. So this isn’t about Baptists in general.

    Nonetheless, this particular church takes a different view. Go read it for yourself. I’m thinking this may not live up to Paul’s little suggestion:

    18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. – Romans 12:18 (NRSV)

    If they believe they cannot in good conscience be present at the installation, perhaps they should stay home quietly. I have to doubt the positive effect of rudeness.

  • Defining Inerrancy Yet Again

    Johnny Esposito, a KJV-Only advocate, states in a recent article (HT: King James Only?) that the basic premise of Harold Lindsell’s book Battle for the Bible can be summarized as:

    • When one questions the inerrancy of the Bible compromise is soon to follow
    • When one changes their position on the Bible compromise in other areas is soon to follow

    That wasn’t where I intended to start this article, but I want to observe here that in general when one holds a position that cannot be questioned, silliness is sure to follow.  I do not mean that one cannot be sure of any positions.  In fact, for me, the more certain I am of a position, the more comfortable I am entertaining challenging questions.

    “Entertaining challenging questions” is precisely what Darrell Pursiful did in a speech Why I Am Not an Inerrantist—Even Though I Am (or Vice Versa).  I found it easily the most helpful reasonably short article on the topic I’ve read.

    Way back when I was studying Biblical languages at the undergraduate level I rejected the doctrine of inerrancy.  I’ve stuck with that position since, but then I started to encounter some weird things, such as people who claimed to believe in inerrancy and yet took more liberal positions on many Biblical issues than I do.  While I understand how the definitions work, I still find it difficult to consider positions such as a late dating of Daniel or a view that early Israelite history is largely legend to be consistent with inerrancy.

    I’m not challenging the right of people to define terms and doctrinal statements as they find it necessary, and there is a certain value in letting experts define a term, but it seems to me that clinging to a term that has a much different meaning in popular circles, while denying that meaning is a bit linguistically perverse.  I can say that Daniel is apocalyptic and that pseudonymity is a characteristic of apocalyptic literature, and I can say that Joshua is some form of legend, and that legends are, well, not entirely historical, but what does it then mean to claim in turn that the Bible is inerrant?

    My own statement of inspiration would be simply that there is nothing in the Bible by accident.  God intends it the way it is.  I discover the way in which God inspires by reading the Bible and looking at what it is.  As a Christian what other standard do I have by which to determine inspiration?  Now I see how that can be defined as inerrancy, but it is not what people in the pews hear when they hear that word—not even close.

    Thus the following resonated with me from Dr. Pursiful’s article:

    The truth is, although all early Christians agreed that Scripture is truthful in all it teaches, formal doctrines of “biblical inerrancy” have only been around for the past 200 years or so. And as we shall see, not all inerrancies are created equal.

    We should note before we go any further that the early church was not naïve in its doctrine of inspiration. The church fathers were well aware of certain anomalies in the text that called for serious theological reflection.

    Inerrancy is a bit difficult to pin down sometimes.  First there is the debate over whether it is a new doctrine or not.  The distinction between the long-held conviction of the church that the Bible is true and modern formal doctrines of inerrancy (and there are many) is important.  Secondly, I really like the phrase “anomalies in the text that called for serious theological reflection.”  That’s really good.  I often say that the contradictions are what I like most in the Bible.  After all, as a Christian I believe that Jesus was both totally divine and totally human; I should be able to handle anomalies in the text that call for serious theological reflection!

    Later, Dr. Pursiful defines this change to more formal doctrines of inerrancy:

    Now remember, the new thing that happened in the 1800’s was not that somebody invented the idea that the Bible is “free from error” or “utterly reliable.” What was new was the way this affirmation came to be defined and defended. In particular, “inerrancy” came to serve as a theological shorthand for the idea that the Bible was error-free not merely in terms of what it taught about the life of faith, but what it taught in any area in inquiry: not merely theology but history, geography, science, psychology, and so forth.

    Again that is admirably clear and, I think, correct.  Our Christian congregations, marinated in the enlightenment, naturally think that Bible should give them accurate information on the stuff that is most important to them–history, geography, science, psychology, and so forth.  When the Bible writers actually try to tell them that those things are not the most important things in one’s life, they are not well equipped to hear it.

    My own note here is that when we assure them that the Bible is factually accurate in those areas, we may often be simply reinforcing their belief that those human ways of looking at things are just as important as they thought, and making it harder for them to find the truths of eternal value.  After all,  all of our history, science, and psychology are but instant’s in time and drops in the ocean to what God has to say to us.

    I am not going to comment point by point on the article.  I’d simply recommend reading the entire thing.  The title really reflects what is going on quite accurately.

    There is an affirmation that must be made about biblical inspiration and authority.  The question in my mind is whether that statement is best made with the word “inerrancy” or whether we need to start again and shed the baggage that word carries.

  • A Note on Independent Voters

    I’m sure it’s a requirement that political commentators try to discover trends in voting patterns. It’s also not surprising that they try to make those trends deal with either the Democratic or the Republican parties. But I think that they simply don’t comprehend the meaning of “independent.”

    I’m just one independent voter. I won’t register as a member of either of the major parties, and I truly vote independently. I examine everything I can find about each candidate in a race. (Have you ever tried to discover anything useful about candidates for the district utility board?) When I vote, it is a decision that the particular candidate is the best person in that race and in that race only. It doesn’t mean I’m likely to vote for the same person next year. If that candidate is a Democrat is doesn’t mean I’m suddenly leaning Democrat. If he or she is Republican, it doesn’t mean I’m leaning Republican.

    For me, the meaning of being an independent voter is that those labels don’t impact the way I vote, except with reference to how party connections might impact the way a particular candidate will govern. I cannot be counted on for a trend. It’s back to a clean slate in each election.

    I don’t know how well that applies to independent voters in general, but the unscientific poll of the independent voters I know, including a few who are registered with a party so that they can participate in primaries, but are no more loyal to the party label than I am, indicates that it’s a pretty common feeling. Party endorsement of a candidate means nothing. Each candidate must earn respect.

    For myself, I will add that I don’t favor or disfavor the incumbent. Since I go out of my way to study the candidates, I will know the names of all of them. I’m never voting on name recognition.

    So don’t seek a trend. I’m not starting to lean one way or another. If the candidates of the major parties–or any party–want my vote, they must earn it 100% for each candidacy.

  • Of Apportionments and Stewardship

    Bishop Willimon has a post about pastoral leadership and stewardship, with the particular aspect of stewardship being apportionments. I like the framing that goes on in our church, as apportionments are called “fair-share giving.” I know that sounds better, but I still call them apportionments.

    I think the general finding is unexceptional. Pastoral leadership has a large impact on how a church responds to apportionments. My question is just what it says about an organization that the pastors have that much of an impact. Apparently the members in the pews are often not all that dedicated to apportionments. One major reason could be that very few United Methodist members really understand how apportionments are assigned (though that knowledge might make the less happy), or how they are spent.

    I have yet to attend a United Methodist church that pays all of its apportionments. At the same time, the way in which the denomination spends the money that is sent up the line tends to make me want to go find an independent church. Unfortunately, I am also well aware of the potential problems of independent churches. For some reason, all churches and denominations consist of people, and thus all forms of organization have problems.

    My own answer is that as long as I’m a member of a United Methodist congregation I must support the payment of apportionments and continue my stewardship, including giving to the local church as the Lord leads. But if there comes a time when I choose to become a member of a church of another denomination, the use of money at the conference and denominational level will doubtless have something to do with it.

    What disturbs me here is to hear stewardship discussed specifically in the form of apportionments, and secondly to see how much Methodist churches change with pastoral assignments. The leadership pattern displayed in Bishop Willimon’s post is something I have observed (much less scientifically, of course) in other areas. I have also seen leadership changes do great damage to a church. I know of a church where the pastor went from pro-charismatic to not-so-much pro-charismatic, and then back to charismatic. With each change the church shed members and while it continues to struggle along, it is not thriving, and many pastors are not very anxious to be sent there.

    I wish I knew how to solve this, other than better pastor placement, and I must be honest when I say that I would do much, much, much worse than the bishop and cabinet in our conference. (Amongst a multitude of other things, this explains why I am neither bishop nor even pastor.) But I do believe this is something that should be of concern. It fits the “shepherd and sheep” model, but doesn’t sound much like the “body of Christ.”

  • Idolatry of Apologetics

    Todd C. Wood, a baraminologist (he studies “kinds” as in Genesis 1), has written an excellent post about how we Christians often make idols of our particular arguments (HT: The Austringer).

    Now as far as I can see, Dr. Wood and I would find ourselves on the opposite side of most debates about origins, but we can make, and believe, our arguments without also making them idols.

    If I might summarize my own view on it, it’s a matter of priorities. Often we make so many issues critical that we have no time to focus on the essentials. One lesson of military strategy is that often when you try to guard everything you end up protecting nothing.

    When Dr. Todd says:

    I greatly fear that our faith in Christ has been replaced with an idolatry of apologetics. I fear we’ve stopped believing in Christ and started believing in arguments about Christ (or the Bible or creation or what have you). I fear we’ve bowed to the world’s demand that we believe only that which is rational. We’re certainly no longer content with merely saying “I don’t know.” We have to have answers, and endless (and often pointless) argument has become our substitute for simply telling unbelievers what Christ has done for us.

    Now I’m not saying that logical arguments are not important, nor am I saying that apologetics is not a valuable Christian activity. It is not that evidence and arguments are unimportant. In my own view the problem is that we make many things essential that are not actually essential parts of the gospel. We make the way we see things the norm, and expect others to see them the same way. In this way we make things ultimate that are not, in fact, ultimate.

    There is a time to debate, but there is also a time to “know nothing but Jesus, and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).