With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

September 4, 2008 at 12:01 pm (Ancient Languages, Church, Theology and the Bible) (, )

Yesterday and today, I read over Doug Mangum’s series of posts comparing the new ESV and NLT study Bibles. Of particular interest to me was the third and final part in the series, where Doug compared the study notes of the two Bibles. In the course of his post, Doug pointed out several notes where he felt that the ESVSB over-theologized based on the Hebrew grammar. I scanned the Book of Jonah, available for viewing online, myself, and felt he was fairly justified in his points of contention with several of these notes.

When Doug ended with the statement, “what I’ve seen so far leads me to think it will be a worthwhile addition to the study bible market,” it started me thinking about whether or not I would say the same thing. I am in agreement with Doug in that I would be interested to see how the rest of the study Bible turns out (and certainly before making any bold judgments on the overall quality of the ESVSB – which I wouldn’t do based on one excerpt). However, considering the notes of the ESVSB brought this thought to my mind: in general (not speaking now of the ESVSB specifically) can a study Bible that makes theological or hermeneutical claims based on the Hebrew grammar, and on closer inspection, it turns out these claims are flat out wrong (or at least highly tenuous), really be considered “worthwhile”?

My problem is this: those of us who know the Biblical languages (or in my case, Hebrew and Aramaic, Greek to be added in this coming school year) have a great responsibility toward those who do not. There is enough self-perpetuated ignorance among lay people as it is, without those who have training in Biblical languages to be spreading more of it around. To me, this is almost unforgivable. Consider the general audience of study Bibles: the average Bible-minded Christian who doesn’t know Hebrew or Greek, and really has no resources to look up something a study Bible says about the language to verify its accuracy.

When it comes to interpretations based on the English, at least the lay person has English resources, if they so chose to utilize them, to look up and see if the information being given has some credence. However, when a claim is made based on the original language, what further resource does the lay person have? They are left with basically two options: trust that the person writing the study notes knows what they are talking about and accept what they say, or try to find someone personally who knows the languages to verify it with them. Since there are, sadly, hardly a glut of people running around in local churches who have a handle on Hebrew and Greek, most are left with option one. There is the option of looking in commentaries by people who know the languages to see if they say something similar, but ultimately it’s the same idea: they can’t know for themselves.

Therefore, I repeat what I said earlier: those who know the languages have a great responsibility. We cannot afford to be careless in our statements based on Hebrew words or grammar. There are hundreds of thousands of people depending on the accuracy, diligence, and scholarship of study tools to get it right. I, of course, realize that we are all human and we all make mistakes, nor do any of us have unlimited knowledge, and some are further down the road of understanding the languages than others. Obviously, there will always be some enterprising person who will make something of nothing regardless of how careful one is. However, to the very best of our ability and knowledge, when we are dealing with educating lay people (which study Bibles, among other tools, ultimately purport to do), we must be very careful in how we use the biblical languages to add theological meaning to the text.

Of course, ultimately, this would all be solved if every Christian would learn the Biblical languages. I am in full agreement with my husband there.

Advertisements

Permalink 5 Comments

Jesus and Men

April 26, 2008 at 9:26 pm (Church, Theology and the Bible)

By now, Calvin is used to my rants about Mark Driscoll, and closely related, the whole, “make the church and Jesus more manly” movement. I think the author of this Christianity Today article summed up my thoughts on the matter nicely, and without all the vitriolic comments I would like to contribute (which would be un-Christlike for a man or woman, might I add).

If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s when something is going in the wrong direction, so people swing to the opposite extreme and come up with ideas just as bad (or worse) that they claim are the “true” way. Yet, it seems to be human nature to make these gigantic pendulum swings. The biggest life lesson my parents taught me that has most blatantly stayed with me and even helped me in my chosen career, is that usually the best option is somewhere in the middle. (Of course “middle” is all in one’s point of view, but the principle still remains!)

Permalink Leave a Comment

Ash Wednesday

February 6, 2008 at 5:35 pm (Church, Personal)

Today begins the season of Lent, something which, before last year, I hardly gave thought to. This morning, Calvin and I attended an Ash Wednesday service at Christ Church. This was my (and Calvin’s) first time attending an Ash Wednesday service, but we thought it appropriate since we both are taking part in Lent this year (again, for the first time ever). We’re sticking with semi-traditional for our first time around, and abstaining from meat. Now I’m a carnivore through and through, I don’t like seafood, and there aren’t many vegetables that I would call my friends, so this is going to be an interesting 40 days.

I’m looking forward to celebrating Easter this year as the culmination of the period of Lent, rather than just an extra special Sunday – and along with Christians the world around.

Permalink 5 Comments

Church, Chicken and Hebrew

November 11, 2007 at 12:31 am (Church, Education, Personal)

Today was a busy day. Calvin and I started out the morning with a meeting for Got Style at church. (An ABC evangelism training program.) It was interesting to see where our church stands as a whole in their evangelistic styles. My primary (most comfortable) “evangelistic style” is Analytical – no surprises there – followed by Relationship and Incarnational (servant evangelism) as areas I am somewhat comfortable in. Personally, while I scored high in the intellectual arena, I think that works more in harmony with relationship-building. I’m not a huge “talker” until I know someone.

After we got home at around 1:00, we translated 2 Samuel 11 and 24 until dinner. I must say, the narrator in 2 Samuel 11 (as in much of the Samuel corpus) is a literary genius. Unfortunately, you just don’t catch much of the interwoven suspense/surprise elements of the David and Bathsheba story in the English. I love translating Hebrew narrative – the (almost) sacrifice of Isaac was another fantastic read when I translated that some years ago. Chalk one more point up to learning original languages! Anyways, I’m happy to say that we’ve now completed all of our translation work for Exegesis of 1 & 2 Samuel for the semester.

The special Saturday dinner for tonight was “Italian Chicken,” in the crock pot. We put a whole chicken in the crock pot with some chopped up potatoes, and an entire bottle of Italian dressing. It had been cooking since 8:00am on low when we unleashed it. It turned out very well – extremely tender (fall-off-the-bone) and juicy. The potatoes weren’t bad either. We paired the dish with some of those canned crescent rolls and a bottle of Tuxedo White, which was decent, but not as good as I remembered. It’s possible that the food pairing wasn’t quite right, but we’re still learning.

After dinner, it was back to Hebrew: we finished Micah 6:13-7:10 for Hebrew. Tomorrow we hope to finish the book and be done with translation work for Intermediate Hebrew. Progress! Micah has been both frustrating and rewarding to translate. At times, it can be difficult to put the Hebrew into readable English if I even understand what it’s saying myself. That’s when the text isn’t corrupted by some textual error. However, there are some great passages that just really flowed – the beauty of Hebrew poetry never ceases to amaze me. Once again, so much you just don’t pick up in the English – so much you just can’t transfer since they are poetic devices for the Hebrew language.

I am reminded constantly how much I love Hebrew. I have battled through Akkadian all through this semester. Somehow I manage A’s and B’s on my quizzes, but I have a sinking feeling that at the insane rate we’ve had to learn it, it will seep out of my mind within a few months. If nothing else, it has reinforced to me where my real love lies.

So, today, it’s been church, chicken, and Hebrew – and a little Stargate thrown in at the end. 🙂

Permalink 2 Comments

Torn

August 9, 2007 at 11:05 pm (Education, Ministry)

I feel as though I am a person torn in two. I feared that it would come to this, and yet I have hoped all along that somehow I would find a way to reconcile my two passions within me, to even bring them to harmonize with each other. But it seems that it is not to be quite yet a perfect duet.

I face a terrible decision that I know really isn’t a decision at all because of the path I have already chosen to follow at this juncture in my life, and I feel as though the other part of me has been placed on a back burner set on warm. It isn’t a nice feeling at all, but I know if I deviated from my path even a little, that wouldn’t be a nice feeling either, and I would regret it ultimately.

I am a person torn in two. On one hand, I am following this adventure of education – I am driven by some unearthly desire to learn more about the Hebrew Bible and anything that will help me understand it better. On the other, I find myself back in ministry, serving with my husband, getting to know a new group of teenagers, and I’m remembering my calling and love for the church, specifically, young people.

Why do these things seem so incompatible? In the end, I don’t think they are – or I would be reconsidering my life’s path. I have blogged on this before, long ago. I am seeking education in the hopes of being able to pass it on, not merely for my own personal benefit – because I have a passion for the church – and I do believe it will benefit my ministry there, on the way, and ultimately. However, in the meanwhile, education is hard work, and time consuming – and there is only so much time in a day, in a week. If I have to take Akkadian on Wednesday nights, then that means no Wednesday night youth group at church, for me. It pains me greatly, but it would pain me if I chose not to take Akkadian as well. I know that to some extent I’m putting youth ministry in the box of one event, but I also realistically know that that is when the majority of students will come, and when I would hang out and continue to develop relationships with them. I will not be cut off entirely, but for a semester at least, I will be somewhat more a stranger to many of the students, and I cut off that night of support to my husband.

Some might criticize me for that, and were it not for the unfailing encouragement and support of my husband to continue in the path of education, and that I absolutely must take Akkadian, and any other class that may interfere at some other point, or stay home to do homework and study if I must – I might falter. I am, after all, a person torn in two, and I dislike – no – I despise having to diminish a part of me for a season in order to develop the other, even if only a little. Finding a proper balance will be a challenge, and I worry I am not up to the task, and I struggle to keep perspective, and to remember I can’t see God’s.

But, I look forward to a day when both sides of me will each have their own different melodies, yes, but will be able to sing in beautiful harmony with each other as a single song, to the glory of God.

Permalink 3 Comments

None/All of the Above

July 4, 2007 at 3:38 pm (Church, Evangelicalismâ„¢, Ministry)

I just finished reading a post by iMonk, and I agree with the basic premise. I, too, feel that churches entrenched in what I would call Evangelicalismâ„¢ have lost sight of what is important. They’ve been focused on drawing people in with external issues – music, appearances, programs – ultimately things that don’t matter to the faith. While many have been successful in “church growth,” in harping on these issues as important, we have taught our children that having their “needs” and “desires” met is important for them to be able to “worship” properly. We’ve also taught new Christians who have come in initially because of these things the same thing. Not a good foundation.

In the same way, I am sure that there are those who would call themselves “emerging” and change the way they do their weekly worship gatherings for pretty much the same reasons. In the name of cultural context, candles are lit, stained glass windows are put up, the lights are dimmed, prayer stations, all sorts of things, wonderful things that resonate with lots of people in the way they “prefer” to worship, but lets be honest – ultimately empty and meaningless without Jesus Christ at the center.

At the same time, there are churches who are so bent on being “Baptist,” or sending people to hell, or never moving the pulpit, or decrying the children if they run in the church building, or would give you a dirty look if you wore a pair of jeans to church, that the chances of reaching their community is slim to none, because the love flowing in that church could fill a thimble. There is fault all around.

So yes, I agree with iMonk’s basic premise. All around, there is a loss of the gospel in the name of “cultural context” or perhaps in the name of keeping the cultural context of the church, and this is tragic. However, I am concerned with the old adage, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you read down through some of the comments on iMonk’s post, there is one that he refers to in the update, Pastor Scott Dontanville, which I took note of. Reading further down, there is another commenter who brings up my thoughts, jeremy bouma.

While I don’t pretend to know what Pastor Scott’s situation was (it could very well have been situation #2 above), sometimes I feel as though it’s an either/or. Either you are culturally relevant, perhaps what some call “emerging,” or you’re solid biblically and have the gospel. What’s the deal?

Why can’t you have a church where people can wear jeans, have pink hair and tattoos, and still have the gospel? Why can’t you have a church with a coffee bar and still have the gospel? Why can’t you have a church with candles and still have the gospel? Why is it an either/or? Why do we limit ourselves to an A) or B)? What question has only A) or B)? There are at least C) none of the above, and D) all of the above. This isn’t true or false. This is the body of Christ, unique, and diverse enough to warrant more than A) and B).

I think I know what the answer is, perhaps, and I’ll venture to say. It’s because it’s more than the loss of the gospel in our churches. It’s because we’ve lost the Church itself. We’ve lost not only the message of Christ, we’ve lost what the Church is. We don’t even know how to do church anymore. We don’t even know why we’re here. That’s evident because even as we think we’ve lost the gospel, we think that somehow the gospel is related to going back to a more traditional way of worship. Unbelievable.

We’re here to love God, and love others. Jesus Christ and his message is at the center of all that we do. We’re CHRISTians. But why do we gather? Why do we even bother having churches? I don’t think we know.

The reason situations 1, 2, and 3 are so miserable is because it’s not about us, it’s about God, and other people. We’ve taught people it’s about us, and thus we expect it to be about us. That’s just American. That’s another problem altogether, and a side trail. But you know what? You can be “pomo.” You can sing hymns. You can do whatever you want. Do you love God? Are you loving people? That might lead you to externally do some stuff a certain way, as you try to missionally live in the world and reach people. But if that “stuff” ever leads us to stop talking about Jesus, then we might as well give up. If that “stuff” ever leads us to stop loving our Christian brothers and sisters for our preferences, we might as well give up.

But the “stuff” is not evil. The “stuff” is not what causes us to lose the gospel or become sanitized. Don’t criticize the “stuff” because genuine people have lost sight in its glitter. Hymns and suits and organs are “stuff” just as much as the candles and prayer stations, just a difference kind of stuff. Let’s not get petty – or perhaps prideful in the ability to “remain pure” in the cultural tide of modern “stuff.”

It’s simple: we’ve forgotten how to be the Church. We’ve forgotten what our own faith means. We have to rethink the Church in order to reclaim the message of Christ – or maybe we should start our rethinking with reclaiming the message – that his body on earth proclaims. Only then will we truly be effective in the world around us.

Permalink 3 Comments

To Swear, or not to Swear

June 9, 2007 at 2:15 pm (Church, Ministry, Theology and the Bible)

An interesting read over at TallSkinnyKiwi on using offensive language.

Pay close attention to the 3 categories of historically offensive language: Premodern, modern, and postmodern.

Calvin is always bugging me about swearing, because I’m a prude who can remember using the “sh” word and the “f” word (as we used to call them in elementary school) once each in my entire life. I guess by TSK’s categories these would fall under modern offensive language, “harsher” forms of bodily or sexual functions. What can I say, my parents trained me well and I see no reason to start saying words I’ve never said before now just because I can.

On the other hand, I’m come to realize as an adult that words are just words and mean different things in different cultures. However, we should also give thought to the idea that offensive language changes with the times, and certain words just don’t hold the same offensive weight that they used to, while other words have moved into that category. What is it, after all, that makes a word a “swear word”? It’s offensive to people. There are certain words that TSK brought up that I would never consider using that my grandma may have without a second thought when she was little. I’m caught in somewhat of an intergenerational taboo because I was raised by a) Christian parents who are b) very modern and yet c) I also grew up in an increasingly postmodern world where other words were ingrained in me by the school system and the media to be wrong, as well to some extent by my parents who were smart enough to accept the changing society around them as they aged.

What this means is growing up, all three categories were off-limits, though the third less than others. The third became more off limits as I aged and became increasingly more a part of society myself, and the first two less off limits as I realized that they really weren’t offensive to quite as many people.

Still, while I may let loose the occasional idiom of “a snowball’s chance in hell,” just because I think it’s aptly descriptive of a situation, I felt the blog post was thoughtful in that as Christians, the most important thing to remember when it comes to words: is their offensive and hurtful power. The old saying may go, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me,” but we all know that it’s entirely false. We could use no “swear” words whatsoever, and yet deeply hurt someone, or we could drop a now benign word that our peer wouldn’t think twice about, but still offend a grey hair we’re in a conversation with. We say all things in love, never speak any word out of malice, spite, or hatred, sensitive to showing the love of Christ to all, ready to adapt to the situation at hand, giving up our verbage preferences temporarily if necessary.

Permalink Leave a Comment

The Wounded Healer by Henri J. M. Nouwen

May 20, 2007 at 10:11 am (Books, Evangelicalismâ„¢, Ministry)

This little book is short, inexpensive, but worth the read. Originally published in 1972, Nouwen was obviously writing in a slightly removed culture and to a different generation, but there were plenty of what I would deem timeless truths to be gleaned from the 100 pages of my 1979 edition.

If I rewrote the book today, I would probably use some different terminology and catch-phrases, but his emphasis on true compassion, authentic community, and especially ministering to people from our own woundedness are just as applicable today as they were in the 70’s. Growing up I know my husband as a PK often heard repeated this idea that ministers somehow needed to hide their pain from their congregations to be able to minister to them. This theory is still perpetuated today in Evangelicalismâ„¢. Nouwen blows this idea out of the water, and in fact states just the opposite.

Though I think he was aiming his book toward the audience of “the minister,” the principles will resonate with anyone seeking to “minister” to people.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Thoughts on Compassion

May 12, 2007 at 1:15 pm (Books, Church, Ministry)

A striking quote from The Wounded Healer by Henri J. M. Nouwen:

Through compassion it is possible to recognize that the craving for love that men feel resides also in our own hearts, that the cruelty that the world knows all too well is also rooted in our own impulses. Through compassion we also sense our hope for forgiveness in our friends’ eyes and our hatred in their bitter mouths. When they kill, we know that we could have done it; when they give life, we know that we can do the same. For a compassionate man nothing human is alien: no joy and no sorrow, no way of living and no way of dying.

What would happen if we had this mindset?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Confession

April 19, 2007 at 8:05 pm (Church, Evangelicalismâ„¢, Personal)

I have been hurt by the church. I have seen and felt more than I wished. My once naive, trusting spirit is forevermore tainted. I am jaded. I am cynical.

But there is a line between cynicism and bitterness. There is a line between realism and almost an arrogance in one’s jadedness. At times I wonder if I am dangerously close to that line. Sometimes I wonder if I cross it. If I am wondering, it is time to take a step back and confess.

My heart must never grow hard and cold. I must never throw up cynicism and criticism as a wall for my own pain. That speaks of bitterness, which is my own heart problem, and no one else’s. I have been out of the fellowship of the body for far too long. I have begun to see myself as no longer a part of them, no longer one of them, and thus given myself the right to judge them, and in doing so have brought judgment upon myself.

I had dealt with my hurt long ago – only to find it manifest itself in this new way recently. I think this is a projection of my growing desperation for that missing community with the body of Christ in my life. Classic “lash out to cover your need” syndrome.

I will always be a little cynical, because of the wounds I’ve been dealt by the church thus far, and because of the vast distance I feel from Evangelicalismâ„¢. But instead of allowing myself to become calloused and harsh, I should allow my wounds to let me bleed for others, that I might not become that which I so despise. This is my confession.

Permalink 2 Comments

Next page »