Anthem vs. 1 Cor 12

I have a few friends who have been reading Atlas Shrugged and I realized that I've never read anything by Ayn Rand. I was in a used bookstore and I found a copy of Anthem for $2 and decided to pick it up to see what all of the fuss was about.

It's an earlier work and rather short, but I quite enjoyed the first 90 pages or so. Basically the story is set in a post apocalyptic society that is all about "the brotherhood" and has completely removed the notion of self from the world. Even the word "I" is forbidden (and unknown). Everyone refers to themselves as "we" and even personal relationships are forbidden, as you are not to value one person above another.

The book is a fascinating look at the communist ideals applied to a futuristic society. The last ten pages or so are where the book gets its title, as our hero discovers the word "I" and it becomes little more than a worship of the self, completely rejecting any notion of collective good or value in anyone other than one's own self. After reading this book (it took little more than 30 minutes to read) I set it aside and opened up to the passage I had planned to read before bed. It made me smile:

“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.” - (1 Corinthians 12:12–31 ESV)

The Christian faith absolutely does not diminish the value of the one, the value of the individual, but rather exalts every person as uniquely formed in the image of God. At the same time, we are not meant to be alone, and we are better when we work together. God has given us each different talents and gifts, and to function at our best we need to involve others to do what we are not able to do well.

This is directly contrary to the message at the end of Anthem, that is essentially all about the "I" with no regard at all for anyone else. When reading a book like Anthem, it's striking how distasteful it is when the worship of self is put on display. I genuinely disliked the last ten pages of the book despite enjoying it up to that point. We are called to be servants, to treat others better than ourselves. In the words of Jesus:

“For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”” - (Mark 10:45 ESV)

Joel

Love Wins & Erasing Hell

Even before the book was released (?) people were asking me what I thought about Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. There was a lot of controversy about this book, and people who know I like Rob continually tried to engage me in conversation about the book. I declined to engage until I'd actually read it. Weirdly, after the book was released, people had moved on to other issues and the questions stopped. It's amazing how fickle the world is. A month or two ago I got around to reading it, but I didn't post about it at the time. My impression after I finished it was that it was an important book, but it was only the opening statement in a long conversation about hell.

When I saw that Francis Chan was releasing a book called Erasing Hell: What God said about eternity, and the things we made up I realized that Francis was the perfect guy to respond to Bell's book. If you've ever heard Francis speak, he is emotional and deeply in love with our savior, and he's also very intelligent and a good writer.

Since Rob's book raises a lot of questions, and Erasing Hell seeks to answer some of those questions, I decided to review these books as a pair.

Love Wins is a typical Rob Bell book, and I mean that in a good way. It is written to engage your mind, and if you don't stop and reflect it's a pretty quick read. I didn't read it quickly, because I found myself stopping and reflecting a bit. Completely lost in the controversy over this book are some excellent thoughts on the nature of salvation in the first few chapters. After sharing the scriptures that talk about how to be saved Rob asks the question about how you are saved:
"Is it what you say,
or who you are,
or what you do,
or what you say you're going to do,
or who your friends are,
or who you're married to,
or whether you give birth to children?
Or is it what questions you're asked?
Or is it what questions you ask in return?
Or is it whether you do what you're told and go into the city?"

Thought provoking stuff.

Another one of the really strong points of this book is a focus on the very real "hell on earth" we have created in a world steeped in sin. This focus on the here and now challenges the reader to recognize that the gospel isn't just about "where we go when we die" but what we will do here, now, for the people around us. "It often appears that those who talk the most about going to heaven when you die talk the least about bringing heaven to earth right now, as Jesus taught us to pray: 'Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.'"

In the chapter on hell, Rob makes a very big point that Gehenna, the greek word translated "hell" was, in fact, a city dump during the time of Christ. Unfortunately for Rob and the reader, this is simply not true. In Erasing Hell, Francis Chan writes "In fact, there is no evidence for hundreds and hundreds of years after Jesus that there was a garbage dump in the Hinnom Valley in the first century. Nor is there any archaeological evidence that this valley was ever a dump...In fact, the first reference we have to the Hinnom Valley, or gehenna, as a town dump is made by a rabbi named David Kimhi in a commentary, which was written in AD 1200."

This is not 100% of Rob's argument, but it is a pretty big error. But then as we get back to the text, it's important once again to read what Rob says, not what other people say he says: "There is hell now, and there is hell later, and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously."

The part of this book that causes such heartburn is that Rob appears to be embracing a form of biblical universalism. Rob asks the question if it is possible to repent and be saved after death. He seems to believe it is, but admits there is no way to be certain. "Will everybody be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices? These are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom love requires."

You aren't going to learn everything you need to know about Love Wins from this blog, you really need to read it and interact with it on your own. But lets move on to erasing hell.

Francis Chan is the perfect guy to write a response to Rob Bell's Love Wins. He is gracious, humble, loving, and someone who I don't believe would ever be drawn into a war of words with another individual. One of the reasons I was eager to buy this book was a photograph that someone took this spring and posted on facebook of Rob Bell and Francis Chan together at an airport, smiling. As I looked at that photograph I thought that it was a perfect example of how we are called to righteous disagreement with one another. They both love Jesus and can love each other, even if they have disagreements over theology.

Another reason I think Francis was the perfect guy to write this book is that he gets the importance of this discussion. "I'm scared because so much is at stake. Think about it. If I say there is no hell, and it turns out that there is a hell, I may lead people into the very place I convinced them did not exist! If I say there is a hell, and I'm wrong, I may persuade people to spend their lives frantically warning loved ones about a terrifying place that is not real! When it comes to hell, we cannot afford to be wrong."

Francis does an excellent job of presenting the "other side of the story" from Rob's book, clearly illustrated with scriptures and well reasoned. Although not written only to respond to Rob's book, Francis answers many of Rob's more controversial points. One of the things I really like about Chan's approach is he makes no attempt to demonize Rob or "call him out" for where they differ. At one point he writes "To be fair, he is not explicitly arguing for this position but listing it as a valid view that would help explain a lot of the tension that we feel when thinking about the hard realities of hell. But he presents this position in such favorable terms that it would be hard to say that he is not advocating it." This kind of careful discussion is what we need more of in this world.

I don't really need to go point by point through Chan's book to tell you that it is an excellent and worthy read. It's not just about hell, but also about the nature of God. Chan (along with his co-author Preston Sprinkle who did most of the research) does an excellent job of detailing what the bible teaches about hell.

I think both books are valuable to read and understand. I would start with Love Wins, and then read erasing hell. I believe that both books are edifying and will draw you closer to God if you let them. On the theological end of things, I find myself landing with Chan most of the time where these books differ, but it's not about being "of Francis or of Rob" but being of Christ in the end.

God is good!

Joel

Communion

I've been reading Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense by N.T. Wright for a while now. A chapter on worship got me thinking about communion.

I grew up going to a community church that was around the corner from my house. We walked to church every Sunday, and I have a lot of memories in that little white building. But my family roots are in the Grace Brethren denomination, and my grandfather was a pastor in the Grace Brethren church for fifty years. Any time we were in Ft. Wayne we would go the Brethren church and I have great memories there as well. The one thing that I believe they do better than any other church is communion.

Communion at my grandfather's church was always an amazing event. It started with a big potluck dinner. Say what you want about potlucks, but they can be fun and as I remember them, it was a roomful of people having a good time and enjoying dinner together. This was always followed by a foot washing service, in which we would move to classrooms in the church and then take a basin and a towel and wash the feet of the person sitting next to us. This tends to creep people out, but it is taken directly from scripture:

“Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?" Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand." Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me." Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!" Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you." For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean." When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.  - John 13:3-16 (ESV)

The point Jesus is making is not really that we should be washing each other's feet, but that we need to be servants, and serve one another out of reverence for Christ. Washing feet was a dirty nasty job, something that nobody wanted to do, and incarnate Deity, the creator of the universe was teaching His disciples through it that there was no job that they should not be willing to do for another.

As a kid, the ceremony was profoundly impacting. I still remember tying the towel on and using the basin. It was always a somber and quiet experience. It was never one that I looked forward to, but I think that was part of the point. I don't know how many times I have attended a Brethren communion service (we attended a brethren church from Jr. High on) but they have left a deep mark on my soul. I am always grateful for those experiences.

After the foot washing ceremony we would return to the fellowship hall for a time of singing and worship, that culminated with the breaking of the bread (think of a cracker that you would hold with another person and break in half) and the drinking of the cup.

So, with that in mind, as I am reading Simply Christian I come upon this:

"First, we break bread and drink wine together, telling the story of Jesus and his death, because Jesus knew that this set of actions would explain the meaning of his death in a way that nothing else--no theories, no clever ideas--could ever do. After all, when Jesus died for our sins it wasn't so he could fill our minds with true ideas, however important they may be, but so he could do something, namely, rescue us from evil and death...This action, like the symbolic actions performed by the ancient prophets, becomes one of the points at which heaven and earth coincide. Paul says that 'as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes' (1 Cor 11:26). He doesn't mean that it's a good opportunity for a sermon. Like a handshake or a kiss, doing it says it."

It got me thinking about communion, and how much it is marginalized in the modern protestant church. Wine is too messy or too controversial or too expensive so we use grape juice. Bread is too much work so we use prefabricated "communion wafers" that are a lot like pet food and very little like bread. We've legislated it into our constitutions and so we cram it into a service in between songs, or perhaps we might get out of our seat and walk to the front. Nobody wants to deal with glassware so we use tiny plastic cups.

None of these things are, in and of themselves, wrong. One of the very best communion experiences of my entire life was in my dorm room with a few friends, a can of coke and some crackers. But I fear that we have gotten so efficient at doing communion that we have forgotten the meaning of it altogether. Communion should be one of the greatest experiences we can ever have. As NT Wright says so eloquently, it is a point at which heaven and earth coincide. I think we are doing ourselves a significant disservice by making it quick, efficient and a tiny piece of a larger service. Maybe we need to rethink how we do communion in 21st century America.

Joel

Deliberate Simplicity

I am way behind on book reviews, so it's time to get caught up. The first book I read recently is Deliberate Simplicity. This book is written by Dave Browning, who is a friend of our senior pastor's.

We read this book as a staff, and I expected a lot from it. Perhaps my expectations are part of why i was disappointed (a theme you will find repeats itself in this round of reviews). The book begins by demonstrating the power of simplicity. In-n-Out vs. McDonalds, Costco vs. Wal-Mart, Trader Joe's vs. The Mega-Supermarket idea etc. In-n-Out, Costco and Trader Joe's all use simplicity to their advantage, offering fewer, higher quality items to great profit and business success. The question Dave then poses is "Have we made church too complex?"

On the whole, this concept appeals to me. Our culture has given up speciality and expertise (when was the last time you went to a butcher shop? never been?) for convenience and price. Perhaps the church has gotten too caught up in trying to be the hub of your social life and needs instead to focus on teaching the gospel. In essence, Deliberate Simplicity is about what a church should not do, and that's a concept I am totally behind. "Deliberate Simplicity advocates restricting the activities of the church instead of expanding them. It calls for less programming instead of more...working smarter instead of harder." and later "It calls us to move the fulcrum so the same (or less) energy is leveraged for greater results. Minimality is how less turns out to be more."

At the same time, I'm not sure I agree with Dave's take on scripture. He makes some pretty inflammatory statements, like "While all scripture is God-breathed and profitable, it is not equally profitable." I know what Dave is getting at, but I think you have to be very careful with approaches like this, as it can often lead to de-emphasizing important but unpopular scripture and allowing your views to shape your theology rather than vice-versa. That said, every church is guilty of this to some degree. When was the last time your church taught out of Obadiah or 3 John?

While this book starts strong, it seems to devolve a bit as we dig through the chapters. It begins to take a pattern of "Most churches do it this way, and this is bad! We do it THIS way, and that is good!" Dave also emphasizes outreach as the primary focus and purpose of the church, but the book tends to minimize the importance of discipleship and spiritual formation of the believer as well. Unfortunately, churches all too often are unbalanced and are all about evangelism or all about growing the believer. I believe the church is called to both, and should be both a group that is outwardly focused while working to continually focus the hearts and mind of its members on God.

In the chapter entitled Multility Dave argues for decentralized leadership in the church, in which the individual congregations are more or less autonomous. While I like what he has to say, I couldn't help but cross out the word "Multility" in my mind and write "Denomination" across the top. What Dave describes and advocates is, essentially, a baptist denominational structure. It's funny how the same ideas come around again with different names attached to them. As I reflect on the history of denominations, I see a lot of the same motives and reasons for creating denominations that are now being used to create multi-site churches and "networks" which are somehow different than denominations in a way nobody can really articulate beyond the name...

Overall I liked the general idea behind this book (less is more) but found it a bit of a tiring read. There was too much "this is how we do it and why it's better" for me. To be fair, you could say this book provides practical real world examples rather than theory and that would be accurate. It didn't hit a homerun with me, but it does provide food for thought.

Joel

Scriptural or Cultural

Recently I did a pre-marital appointment for a couple who wanted to attend our marriage class. They indicated in their application that they were living together. Part of our requirement for being part of the class is that couples not be living together, and if they are we meet with them to encourage them to separate until their wedding. Not knowing how the appointment would go, I wanted to prepare and be sure that I had solid scriptural footing for any conversations that might arise.

I figured there had to be a verse somewhere that said "Thou shalt not knock boots until thy wedding day, thus saith the Lord" but it is nowhere to be found. So I asked another pastor. He looked at me funny. "Hmm, I don't know. Let's look" and he pulled out a little counseling guide that pointed to 1 Corinthians 6:

1Cor. 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Cor. 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Ok, but what, exactly, does sexually immoral mean? Because they are not adulterers, they aren't married. Well, in Greek it's pornos. Looking at the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, pornos seems to be related to prostitution. Well, they aren't going to prostitutes so that doesn't exactly apply... Other greek lexicons were of no help either. They mostly talk of immoral behavior or relationship to prostitution. Hmmm. Ok, so what if they claim "we aren't immoral, we are in a monogamous relationship with one another!"

So I asked another pastor. He pointed me to Hebrews 13:4

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

Ok, but they aren't married, and they aren't guilty of adultery, and the sexually immoral had that pesky pornos root again. I began to wonder if this was more of a cultural thing than a scriptural thing. After all, in 1 Corinthians 6:16 it seems to indicate that it is the sexual act that creates the union in God's eyes, not the marriage ceremony:

1Cor. 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!
1Cor. 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”

It was at this point that my wife joked "we shouldn't have waited!" to which we all laughed. So I asked another pastor. He went first to corinthians, and then to another passage that had that pesky greek word pornos in it. He replied confidently "but pornos means immorality!" and then we discussed that a bit. Pornos is often claimed to mean a lot of things, but when you come right down to it, it seems to tie mostly to prostitition. It was amazing to me how confident we all were without ever really digging into the scriptures involved.

So I went to yet another pastor and asked him. He immediately went to Ephesians 5:3 -

Eph. 5:3 ¶ But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.

We have a winner! Regardless of how you exegete porneia or pornos, this verse is clear about sexual purity in english or in Greek. I didn't exactly expect them to begin arguing greek roots with me, and I wasn't about to tell them to continue on in sexual sin, but I found it very interesting how difficult it was for guys who know their bible to answer this question when challenged on those very points.

It did get me thinking about how easy it is to apply culture to the scripture, and to assume that cultural values are biblical values. It is always good to search the word of God to be sure that our assumptions are backed up by the text. In this case I believe they are, but I was definitely surprised at how not black and white this whole discussion really was when we dug in.

Joel

The good and bad of conflict

Fasten your seat belts, this entry goes all over the place...

This has been a rough week for my son. It started when he got hit by a pitch from a flamethrowing pitcher in a little league game, making him terrified of the baseball. To that stress he added a problem with a bully at school, and having to learn how to stand up for himself and face having no friends. This second element is what I am going to focus on before talking theology...

My son is a wonderful kid who makes friends easily. There is a kid at school, we'll call him Bob, who wants to be his friend even though he is probably not a kid that my son would hang out with much. Another of his friends, we'll call him Steve, doesn't like Bob and is trying to make sure that Bob has no friends. We told our son that he doesn't have to be best friends, but he has to be nice to everyone and cannot shun Bob simply because Steve does not like him. With me so far?

This week Steve found out that our son had Bob over to play, and freaked out and told our son that he hated him etc. He didn't want to go to school the next day in order to avoid the conflict, and it provided a great opportunity to parent him through this, teaching him not to fight back (Steve hit him the second day) but to turn the other cheek, and to face the conflict in front of him. The end result was that our son told Steve that he was not willing to be his puppet, and Steve was more interested in being our son's friend than ruining Bob's life.

The good and bad is easy to see here, because on the plus side our son learned to face conflict, and on the down side, he had a rather miserable week. But how much worse would his life be if he had allowed himself to be bullied into behavior he knew was wrong? How much worse would his life be if he allowed himself to be ruled by fear, trying to avoid the conflict rather than face it? Instead he did what was right. I am praying that these lessons will carry with him to later in life when he has friends who try to convince him to do other things he knows is wrong. The ability to stand up and say no is a powerful skill.

I've been reading through the book of Acts lately. Acts is an amazing and often overlooked book on the beginnings of the church. Specifically, I was dwelling on the story of Paul and Barnabas. In Acts 11 Barnabas comes to Tarsus to meet Saul, and then spent a year in ministry with him. Chapters 13 & 14 tell of the amazing ministry these two apostles did together throughout the world. These guys were the "dream team" of early church evangelism. But something happens at the end of chapter 15. Conflict over John Mark, Barnabas' relative, comes between them:

“And there arose a sharp disagreement, so that they separated from each other. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and departed, having been commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.”
(Acts 15:39-41 ESV)

It's astonishing to think that two apostles could have such a sharp disagreement that they would break up the dream team over it, but there it is. I have often heard this passage cited as one of how God can use everything for His glory. By breaking up this powerful pair, the gospel was spread to more places because they could cover twice as much ground apart. That is the upside, but is there a downside? Yes.

The record of what Barnabas did effectively ends in Acts 15. There is a touch more in Galatians and 1 Corinthians, but compared to the record of Paul's work, we are left to wonder at the effectiveness of Barnabas and John Mark whereas we can read in great detail on the journeys and preaching of Paul.

I find myself wondering what kind of ministry Barnabas had after he and Paul split. It's interesting that we have no commentary on the effectiveness of Barnabas in Cyprus, but we know that Paul and Silas strengthened the churches on their travels. We don't know what their ministry was like or what they did, but we do know two results of this split: (1) Barnabas and Paul clearly reconciled as they did ministry again in later years and (2) Paul's distrust of John Mark was alleviated because they did ministry together after this event as well.

So once again, there is good and bad in conflict. The good side is that ministry was accomplished by both teams, and the better side is that John Mark and Silas both had the opportunity to minister side by side with great evangelists and be mentored by them. The downside is that we have lost the record of the work that Barnabas did and we are only left to wonder how effective the duo of Paul and Barnabas could have been if they had continued together.

God is sovereign, and only He knows why He allowed this to happen. If God believed that we needed to know what Barnabas and Mark did, I have no question in my mind that it would be recorded and preserved for us. But I still can't help but be a little saddened that the dream team had to be split up due to a conflict.

No great conclusion, just musings...

Joel

Pondering the little flowers (revised for clarity)

I'm currently reading the little flowers of St. Francis of Assisi. It's a small little book that reads a bit like Christian legend. Interesting stuff. One thing that I've been pondering:

Francis was raising money to repair physical church buildings. He also was collecting stone and such. At one point a man he had bought stone from came back to him (knowing that Francis had money) and demanded more money for the stone he had sold. The text uses something like "with avarice in his heart" so it was clear that at least in the mind of Francis the man was being dishonest. Despite this, Francis paid him God used that in Sylvester's life. The text reads:

"Then St. Francis, marveling at his [Sylvester's] greed and not wishing to contend with him, as a true follower of the Holy Gospel, put his hands into the bosom of Bernard and, having filled them with money, put them into the bosom of Sylvester, saying that if he wanted more he would give him more. Sylvester, being content with that which he had received, departed and went to his house. In the evening, thinking over what he had done during the day and considering the zeal of Bernard and the sanctity of St. Francis, he repented of his avarice. That night and on the two following nights, he had a vision from God, in which he beheld how from the mouth of St. Francis issued a cross of gold, the top of which reached to heaven, and arms of which extended from the East all the way to the West. By reason of this vision he gave away all that he had for the love of God and became a minor friar, and he was of such holiness and grace in the Order, that he spoke with God even as one friend speaks with another, as St. Francis many time attested, and as shall be described in what follows."

Hmmmm.

How should we interact with someone who rips us off? I know the little flowers aren't scripture, but I've been pondering this lately due to something that happened to me personally. Should we confront someone who rips us off? Should we take them to court? (scripture is clear on that one, at least if they are a believer, and has another process outlined in matthew 18) Should we just ignore it?

Food for thought, no conclusions here...

Joel

Do we overemphasize church?

Years ago when we would do baptisms, people would spend a lot of time in their testimonies talking about how great this church was. While that is way cool, it always made me uncomfortable. Our faith is in Christ, not the church. Christ is our redeemer, not the church. He is risen, we merely point to Him.

It's not that the church is bad, or shouldn't be praised. Indeed Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for Her. But I think sometimes we get too hung up on church attendance and forget that attending church is not what is important, following Jesus is what is important.

As I get older I realize that people experience God in different ways. For some it is being at church, but for others it might be in serving the poor, or gazing upon a mountain vista, or leading a small group, or singing songs together as a family, or any other number of things. Church is important, yes, but do we focus so much on going to church that we create a belief that this is the only way to connect to God?

I'm not advocating that attending church is not important. It has been my experience in life that many of the people who claim that going to church is not important seem to use that as an excuse to not follow God. I believe that time together as a community of believers is extremely valuable to our spiritual walk. But when we become legalistic about it, I think we dilute it's impact and create a culture of obligation rather than worship.

Just something I'm pondering these days.

Joel

Monk Habits for Everyday People - The Book Review

If you read this blog regularly, you know that I attended a lecture entitled "Monk Habits for Everyday People" by Dennis Okholm. He has written a book by the same name, which I purchased at the end of the session. I was excited to read the book, to see what further insights would be contained within the covers.

I wanted to like this book. I really did. But I found it unfulfilling. It isn't nearly as good as the lecture I attended, and reads more like a commentary on the rule of St. Benedict, which I read prior to reading this book in preparation. Perhaps that was my mistake. This book is geared more towards convincing the reader that monasticism is still relevant and worthwhile, and I don't need convincing on that point. The commentary on the rule wasn't revolutionary either, but served to provide an introduction to the monastic life to protestants who have never read the rule or studied the monastic life at all. I have done quite a bit of study on Christian Mystics, so perhaps I'm just not the target for this book.

If you are looking for a protestant introduction to what the monastic life is all about, this is not a bad book. But I can't recommend it wholeheartedly like I expected to.

Joel

Monk Habits for Everyday People

From time to time Fuller Seminary's Irvine campus holds what they call "Conversations on Culture" in which they bring in a speaker and work through the integration of Christianity and the culture around us. It is a significant commitment to make it down to orange county in the middle of the day, but I couldn't resist today's topic: Monk Habits for Everyday People.

This session was hosted by Dennis Okholm, a professor at Asuza Pacific University who serves as adjunct faculty at Fuller's Irvine campus. Dennis has written a book by the same title as today's topic. Dennis opened the session by telling his story about how he first got connected with the monastic life in North America. His first experience was with a monastery named "Blue Cloud Abbey" in South Dakota where he spent three days there in order to take a break from life. He loved it, and his second visit was a ten day visit with six students for a class entitled "the habits of monks". Since then he has become connected with the abbey on a regular basis. Blue Cloud Abbey is a Benedictine monastery located in South Dakota. Although Dennis has relocated to Southern California, he continues to remain connected with Blue Cloud Abbey as an oblate (a friend of the monastery that shares a spiritual journey with them).

Dennis talked some about the specific activities at Blue Cloud, such as reading through the entire psalter every month. The traditional Benedictine rule has a tighter schedule, with the entire psalter read every week. The monastery also has a mission they founded in Guatemala that serves the people and provides a source of fabric that the monastery in South Dakota uses to make vestments and such. The money from the sale of those vestments directly benefits the people in Guatemala. It's an great arrangement that provides not only spiritual instruction for the people of Guatemala, but also employment.

A lecture on the rule of St. Benedict would have been interesting, but not really engaging. Thankfully, this is not what today was about. Dennis began by introducing us to Brother Jean, Brother Rene, and other monks that are special to him. He also shared some of the customs and activities of the monastery, specifically mentioning how the monks have banquets together after mass. One thought stuck in my mind as I listened: COMMUNITY. This wasn't about rules and regulations and tips for deep spirituality, it was about community. Each of the monks that Dennis has come to know at Blue Cloud have become special to him. The story of those men was what he really wanted to share.

One even that really stuck out to him was how after mass at the end of a weekend at the abbey, one of the monks offered him coffee for his drive home. The simple question "Do you have a thermos?" showed how attuned the monks were to the needs of others. They were thinking about what he would need for his long drive home.

Dennis shared quite a bit about the interaction of his students with the monastery as well. On the first student visit, he had a young southern baptist who was scared and got physically ill due to the tension of being around the monastery. By the end of the weekend she couldn't wait to return. I am constantly amazed at how much we focus on our disagreements, to the point that someone could become physically ill due to being nervous about being around fellow Christians.

One statement that really struck me was from one of the monks, who at the end of one of the visits stood up and thanked the students for coming, because it reminds the monks to question whether they are really living up to their vows. How often do we get so wrapped up in the specks in other people's eyes that we forget that Jesus calls us to examine ourselves.

One of Dennis' points was that Benedict did not expect spiritual gold medalists to be monks. He viewed the monastery as a school for the Lord's service, trying to emulate what we read in Acts 2 & 4. The rule of St. Benedict was first written down for the Monte Casino Monastery. Benedict's goal was to establish a community where we learn to serve others and serve the Lord. The goal of the monks is to create by grace the likeness of Christ, forming themselves and each other in a shared life.

This is, in a nutshell, the entire point of Okholm's talk today and his book on everyday habits. There is nothing in that paragraph that requires a monastic life. As churches we should strive to do exactly what is outlined in the rule of St. Benedict. We should be a community that seeks to form ourselves and each other into the likeness of Christ through a shared life together.

One of the original subheadings for the book was "A book for protestants who are not in a hurry" which I found fascinating. Our society does not value the contemplative or the slow. We have become consumers of religion instead of cultivators of our spirit.

While we have kids stories like the tortoise and the hare, have you ever met anyone who wants to be the tortoise? We have microwave ovens because a regular oven takes too long. We have single cup coffee pots because who wants to wait for a whole pot to brew. We have fast food restaurants because spending an entire hour sitting down at a restaurant to eat is too much. We have powerbars because who has time to eat fast food anymore? Heck, why not just create a home IV kit and avoid food altogether?

Knowing God is not something we can hurry, it's about daily progress. Every day we need to seek God. You can't truly seek God by spending five minutes reading the bible and giving a quick shout out to God before dinner. Seeking God takes time. Lots of it. We can't be in a hurry.

Dennis then moved on to some of the objections to the monastic movement (please note: he isn't advocating that we all become monks, rather he is advocating that we learn from the monks and apply that learning to our daily lives). One objection is that the monastery is a contrived environment, it is not the "real world" so to speak. The answer to that is that wherever there is a fellowship of Christians trying to be what Christ called us to be is the real world.

Another common objection is that monastic spirituality is habitual. Dennis' response to that is that spiritual habits can keep us spiritually healthy. He made a point in his own life how every morning now when he wakes up the first words out of his mouth are "Open my lips, oh Lord, and my mouth shall declare your praise." Yes it's a habit, but it sets a tone for the day as the very first thing every morning. Just because it's habitual does not make it bad. The danger lies in relying only on the habitual, and never taking time to allow God to work in your life.

Some discussion was had about silence. Okholm made an interesting statement: In our activist piety we have tended to prophetic pronouncements rather than quiet listening. The silence of the monastic reveals the sound of the world. Perhaps we fill our lives with noise because we are really afraid to face ourselves. We hardly ever live from within outwards, instead we react to the world and accept as our life what is fed in from the outside.

A great question was given, asking how Okholm's life has changed since he began to try to apply monastic principles to his life. His answers: Morning prayer has become a priority. The psalter becomes indispensible on a daily basis. Balance of life. Being a little more aware of the presence of God in daily life. We just skim on the surface of life, and miss the depth that lies beneath. Being part of the fellowship of monks.

In closing, the key principles of the monastic life were summarized as follows:

Work. Study. Pray.

I have not yet read the book, but I purchased a copy and plan on devouring it soon. Before I review the book, I wanted to share with you what Okholm shared today. It was a blessing to be able to attend.

Joel

A little thing called context

Yesterday a couple of friends of mine were talking, and one of them was relating Mark Driscoll's comments about Rob Bell to the other. I got involved in the conversation, and the long and the short of it is that I ended up listening to Driscoll's entire lecture. This address was delivered at the convergent conference at southeastern baptist theological seminary in September. Mark admitted that he put the entire thing together in a few hours, which is unfortunate, because words have impact in this internet age, and his arguments about Bell are way off base.

Mark criticizes Bell for three specific things: (1) Using rabbinical writings and other non-Christian books to understand scripture (2) A passage in Velvet Elvis and (3) Having Brian McLaren fill his pulpit. I will address each one.

Mark's argument is that the rabbis did not know Jesus, and therefore their writings are of no value because Jesus claims that all of scripture is about him. There is a profound logical mistake in this thinking. Rob Bell and others do not look to the rabbinical writings as the final authority, but as a way of understanding the context in which the scriptures were written, and how they might have been understood by those who read them. If we throw out these writings as spurious because of their non-Christian nature, we must then throw out all of the understanding of Greek and Hebrew that we gain from non-biblical sources. After all, those sources are used for the same purpose: understanding the real meaning and use of the words in scripture. Either non-Christian works can help us understand the word of God, or they don't. If they don't, we are in a heap of trouble because every single version of the bible we have relies on these sources for their translations, and without them translation would be impossible.

I have not read one of the books Mark rails against (A Brief History of Everything), but having listened to sermons by Rob Bell and having read his books, I am certain he (Rob) doesn't interpret the book or use it in the way Mark understands it and assumes it is being used. I have, however, read Velvet Elvis, and so I will address that point next.

Mark's second argument is about a passage in Velvet Elvis. Mark states that Rob argues against he virgin birth (he doesn't), and then proceeds to tear apart an argument that Rob did not make. Let me explain:

In the chapter entitled "Jump" Rob discusses our understanding of God, and what we base our beliefs on. Just prior to the discussion that freaks out Driscoll (did he read the whole book, or did someone just ask him about those pages?) Rob writes: "The truth about God is why study and discussion and doctrines are so necessary. They help us put words to realities beyond words. They give us insight and understanding into the experience of God we're having...If they ever become the point, something has gone seriously wrong. Doctrine is a wonderful servant and a horrible master."

Rob continues later "Each of the core doctrines for him is like a individual brick that stacks on top of the otehrs. If you pull one out, the whole wall starts to crumble... Like he said, no six-day creation equals no cross." Then what Rob does is, to me, brilliant, and to Driscoll, horrifying. He changes the focus so that this doesn't become a debate about the length of creation, because that isn't what this is about. It's about how we form and understand our view of God. So rather than make it a debate about a single issue, he switches to a straw man issue to make a point. Mark misses this entirely. To Mark, Rob is now arguing something very bad, which Rob is not. Let's read on:

"What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry..."

I'm going to stop here. Obviously he is being absurd. He isn't claiming that Joseph was Jesus' real biological father because that might engage an argument he doesn't want to engage. He is only making a point, hence "Larry" is really his father. But he continues:

"But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things"

I (Joel) will add that, in fact, a completely appropriate translation is "young woman" and a few bible translations use that.

Rob's point here is that it's not just that someone dug up Larry, but that you also discover that this could be supported in scritpure. Maybe the interpretation you always thought was true was not true, and there were others that would allow you to hold to the authority of scripture and still be a follower of God while losing something that you hold so dear.

Again, Driscoll completely misses the point. Rob is VERY clear here that this is not a discussion about the virgin birth, and yet Mark jumps in to the fray to DEFEND the virgin birth against Rob's heretical teaching. Rob closes by asking "Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian?"

That's what this is about. It has nothing to do with the virgin birth. Just in case you missed it, Rob affirms the virgin birth on the very next page. Mark mentions this, but adds "but we just don't need it" which is not in the text of the book.

What concerns me here are two things: First is that Mark would take on Rob without truly taking the time to understand the book or even talk to Rob (or others) to see if he is off base. The second point requires a little digression. In an earlier discussion on Brian McLaren he goes off on a book called "Recovering the Scandal of the Cross" which I think is a terrible book. So on that, we agree. The problem is that Mark also completely missed the point of that book as well, and his comments are unfair and distort what the book is trying to say rather badly. Now, to reiterate, I thought the book was terrible. I am not trying to defend Joel Green and Mark Baker, but if Mark is this far off base on his comments regarding the two books I have read, what does that say about his other comments?

So my second point is that his poor treatment of Rob's book and of Recovering the Scandal of the Cross leads me to believe that he has probably missed something in the other books he critiques as well. So should I care about his comments regarding Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt? Well, I certainly don't agree with them like I did before I heard the section on Rob Bell. But then, I haven't read any of Doug or Brian's work, only what they said in Listening to the Beliefs of the Emerging Church. Thus, after Mark's rant on Rob, I have to retract my initial agreement that I don't think McLaren should cover Rob's pulpit. I don't really know enough about what Brian really believes to have an opinion on that. All I know is what Mark said and what little Brian wrote in the aforementioned book.

And that's the real problem. Things like this weaken the impact of your teaching of the bible. I like Mark. I loved Radical Reformission. I loved his chapter in Listening to the Beliefs. I have enjoyed his sermons. But to someone who is not firmly a Christian, does his clear misunderstanding of the writings of Bell and others make him less authoritative of a preacher? Does it call in to question everything he teaches? To me it does.

And that is the tragedy of this whole incident. I believe that Mark has done damage to his reputation and his authority as a preacher through this chapel message, and that truly saddens me not only for Mark, but because it harms the message of the Gospel as well. Mark is a gifted preacher, clearly. He has done great things in Seattle and God has blessed his ministry. I am still a Mark Driscoll fan and I want him to be successful and proclaim the word of God for all of his days, I just pray that he will be more careful about what he says about other teachers and writings, and that he will recognize how it affects the message that matters, the message of the cross.

Joel

Life

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. - James 4:13-14 (ESV)

On August 9 my grandmother died. On September 18 I learned that my other grandmother had gone in the hospital for the second time that I can remember in my lifetime. On September 26 the mother of my Uncle Rich died. She fell down the stairs a few days ago, and suffered serious head trauma. Although she was old, this was still a sudden event and very traumatic and shocking for the family.

Today I visited an 11 year old girl in the hospital who had an incorrect prescription that was 10x the dosage she should have had. She appears to be improving, but it was still very traumatic for the family and today certainly did not work out like they had originally planned.

A friend of mine was in church with his family and had a seizure, only to discover that he had a brain tumor. Prior to that day he had no inkling that anything was wrong at all. Now this fact dominates their life as they deal with the repurcussions of the tumor and surgery.

I'm beginning to think that James might be on to something here. Our lives are short, and unfortunately for us, we don't know how much time we have. I don't think James is advocating a total lack of planning on our parts, but he is telling us the nature of life. Our lives are a mist, they are fleeting, and we cannot choose when they will end or what life will bring.

Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there were none of them. - Psalms 139:16

It is interesting that James refers to our life as but a mist. A mist is fleeting, but it can have an impact. When I'm standing in line at a theme park, I'm grateful for the mist created by the misters installed for my comfort. When I drive my car I am grateful for the mist of gasoline that explodes forcing the piston up and giving my car power. A mist can have an impact, but only if it is put to proper use. A mist of gasoline in the open air is a health hazard. In an engine it is power.

What kind of mist are you?

Created for a Purpose

My son likes racing. That is not unusual among six year old boys, but what is unusual is that he lives in a NASCAR-free household. We watch formula 1, champ car, the paris-dakar rally, LeMans and the odd miscellaneous race now and then. Jacob likes to ask daddy about racing and think through theoretical situations involving cars from different series.

A couple of weeks ago while we were watching an F1 race he asked me what the fastest cars in the world are. I told him that in a straight line it was a Top Fuel dragster, and if there are turns involved it is Formula 1. Having never seen a drag race, he was curious about Top Fuel, so we tivoed a drag race for him to watch.

Jacob began asking questions. Which would win, an F1 car or a Top Fuel Dragster? What if the race didn’t have any turns? What if the race was a mile long instead of a quarter mile? I told him the F1 car would win because a dragster blows up after 1/4 mile.

That got me thinking. Put an F1 car in one lane and a Dragster in the other, and the Dragster will win every single time, no contest. But extend the race to 1/2 mile and the dragster will never even make the finish line. Why? Because a top fuel dragster is a very precise piece of equipment, designed to do one thing extremely well.

As if on cue, they ran a video of a driver whose throttle stuck open. The engine of the dragster exploded about 100 feet past the finish line. Dragsters define the term “purpose built machine” and if they are not being used for that purpose, there is no more useless piece of machinery on the planet.

That got me thinking about our relationship to God.

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:10 ESV)

God designed us to glorify Him, and we do that by doing good works. What does Paul mean by good works? This is one of those verses where studying the Greek can really help us understand what Paul is saying. The ESV translation above is a good one, but it fails to capture some of the subtleties of Greek that really bring out the meaning in this passage. Let's take a look:

The phrase Paul uses that is often translated "good works" is ergois agathois. A look at the UBS Greek Lexicon on the word agathois (here translated good) is very illuminating. The Greek term applied in this manner means "good, useful, satisfactory for one's purpose, fitting, beneficial."

Now let's look at the word used for "workmanship" which is poiema. This word means "That which has been made" or "a work of the creator." Certainly workmanship is a good translation, but it's not a word that we use often. This might better understood as creation, although the phrasing in English gets a little awkward with "creation created" back to back. Still, we aren't translating for posterity, only for understanding, so we'll use the awkward phrasing.

The last word we need to look at is peripatesomen. This is translated "we should walk" by the ESV. This word can also be used to indicate "to live or behave in a customary manner, with possible focus on continuity of action"

Thus if we think about this verse with the Greek in mind, we see what Paul is saying "For we are his creation, created in christ Jesus to do things that fulfill our purpose, which God prepared beforehand, that we should live doing these things regularly"

When we are done we have a very message-esque translation, in that you cannot pin the words back to the Greek very easily, but we have unpacked this passage and have a much clearer picture of what Paul is trying to communicate. God created us with things in mind for us to do. These things are predetermined and they are our purpose in life.

A quick look at Romans gives us a picture of what that means for us:

“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,* for those who are called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28 ESV)

God created us for a purpose, which he has pre-ordained for us. When we live for that purpose, when we love God and seek to do His will, he promises that he will work things out for us. On the other hand, when we deviate from that purpose we become as effective as a top fuel dragster trying to take the famous corkscrew at Laguna Seca. The end result is disaster.

You are made for a purpose. Are you living for it, or are you doing something else?

Joel

A few words on baptism.

A friend of mine asked me a question recently, whether or not baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins. Most people who believe that it is focus on the words of Peter:

And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2:38 (All verses ESV)

This appears to be very clear, that you must be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, we have passages like John 3:16 that paint a different picture of salvation:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. - John 3:16

What appears to be important in John is simply the act of belief. Baptism is not mentioned. Proponents of this argument usually cite the thief on the cross as another proof that baptism is not necessary:

“One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”” - Luke 23:39-43

This passage is very important to understanding the process of salvation. The words of Peter say to "Repent and be baptized" but the thief clearly didn't have the opportunity to be baptized and yet he was certainly saved. The words of Jesus in John 3 say that belief in him is what matters, but do not mention repentance, and yet you would be hard pressed to find anyone who argues that only belief matters. Even the demons believe in God (James 2:9).

We need to be careful that we don't put too much stock in a single verse, but instead consider all of scripture if possible. The thief on the cross believed in Jesus, repented of his sins and was saved.

One way to look at this passage is as an extraordinary circumstance. Truly there was no way for this man to be baptized, nor to listen to a sermon, and he had a direct dispensation from the Lord Jesus Himself that he would be saved. But I think to do this is to ignore what the passage is meant to teach us.

In looking at this I think it's key to realize that the thief's action was a combination of Peter's exhortation to repent and Jesus' teaching that belief in the son leads to eternal life. It seems that the process of salvation is believe (in Jesus), repent (of your sins), and receive (the gift of forgiveness of sins and of the Holy Spirit).

There is little argument there, but that leaves us with the question of what Peter meant when he said "repent and be baptized" and I think this is where context becomes so critical. In verse 22 Peter addresses his audience, and that audience is "Men of Israel." This is a key point, because the entire system of Jewish law is about external action as evidence of internal state. The Jews show their allegiance to God by obeying the law. When speaking to Jews, Peter would need to explain what external action would represent their internal change of repentance, and this action was baptism.

I do not believe that Peter here is insisting that baptism is necessary for salvation, but rather that baptism is how you show that you have repented of your sins. For the thief on the cross this was not necessary because he had shown his repentance through his action (defending Jesus to the other thief), and it was not necessary that he do anything other than believe and repent.

Another key point is that baptism was viewed as a way of identifying yourself as a proselyte. Paul addresses this very topic in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 when he says that Jesus did not send him to baptize, but to preach. This was in the context of division in the church, and Paul was thankful that he hadn't baptized anyone because he didn't want them to have bragging rights.

It is interesting that Paul does not ever preach that you must be baptized in order to be saved (not sure about Romans 6. Maybe we'll come back to that later). In Romans Paul writes:

“But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” - Romans 10:8-10

Paul's audience is not only Jewish (although it does include them). Paul was called to take the name of Christ to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15) who did not have the same emphasis on external signs of internal change. Thus Paul focused on belief in Christ, and then how one should act after professing that faith.

That does not mean that baptism is unimportant. Indeed Paul did baptize people, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 1:14 & 16, and Jesus Himself underwent baptism. Paul was baptized immediately after the scales fell from his eyes. The New Testament is filled with examples of people being baptized after confessing their faith in Christ. Let's not forget the "great commission" in Matthew:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” - Matthew 28:18-20

We would be remiss to ignore all of this evidence (and a direct command from Jesus Himself) and view the sacrament of baptism as unimportant. But it is not the waters of baptism that save, it is repentant faith in the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ that offer salvation and forgiveness of sins.

Joel

Thoughts on Translations

Let me start by saying that we are blessed to have a plethora of
translations available to us. The many talented translators of Wycliffe
are working hard to bring ONE translation to people groups, and we
have the luxury of choosing from many excellent translations...
and a few bad ones :-)

Every translation is a compromise. Every single one. When translating
ancient languages it is simply impossible to do a perfect job. A
literal word for word translation is unreadable, and makes little
sense in the target language (English). The other side is a highly
interpretive translation like the NLT, or a paraphrase like the
message or living bible which bears little resemblance to the
original text.

What's the difference? A paraphrase does not seek to maintain the
original text, but tries to convey the meaning of what the text is
about. A translation seeks to translate the original languages into
modern ones. The Message is a current popular paraphrase. The NIV,
NASB, ESV and TNIV are all translations. The NLT is also a
translation, but has more in common with the message than the NASB.

Rather than "proof text" and show you problem passages in various
translations, I am going to work from a passage that I have
translated myself. Psalms 19. I love this passage of scripture, but
it's also a total bear to translate... Thus, there is lots of room
for interpretation. I have tried to be as literal as possible in my
translation. (I didn't include all of the Psalm 19, only the beginning)

Joel's Translation:
The heavens (are) declaring the glory of God, the sky (is)
proclaiming the work of His
hands. Day after day pours forth speech, and night after night
declares knowledge. There is no speech and there are no words, their
voice is not heard. Into all the earth their voice has gone out, and
to the end of the world their words. In them He has placed a tent for
the sun, so it is like a bridegroom coming out from his chamber, it
rejoices like a mighty man to run the course.

Now let's compare this to the message, a paraphrase:

God’s glory is on tour in the skies, God-craft on exhibit across the
horizon. Madame Day holds classes every morning, Professor Night
lectures each evening. Their words aren’t heard, their voices aren’t
recorded, But their silence fills the earth: unspoken truth is spoken
everywhere.
God makes a huge dome for the sun—a superdome! The morning sun’s a
new husband leaping from his honeymoon bed, The daybreaking sun an
athlete racing to the tape.
(Psalms 19:1-5 MESSAGE)

You can see that Eugene Peterson has made the text come alive, but
the text bears little relation to the original Hebrew. There are a
lot of phrases and ideas that are not present in the original Hebrew
text, but this is Eugene's interpretation of what this passage is
trying to say.

Let's look at the other end of the spectrum, the NASB95:

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is
declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And
night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there
words; Their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all
the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world. In them He
has placed a tent for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of
his chamber; It rejoices as a strong man to run his course.
(Psalms 19:1-5 NAS95S)

You can see that the NASB is very similar to my translation, props to
me :-) But seriously, where we differ they are likely right. In some
cases there are simple word choice issues where we have chosen
differently and both of us are right.

Now, let's look at the ESV:

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above* proclaims
his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night
reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose
voice is not heard. Their measuring line* goes out through all the
earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a
tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his
chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
(Psalms 19:1-5 ESV)

The ESV makes the meaning of this passage a lot clearer than my
translation or the NASB, and yet is seemingly faithful to the
original Hebrew (more on this later).

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of
his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night
they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their
voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their
words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent
for the sun, which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his
pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
(Psalms 19:1-5 NIV-G/K)

The NIV is very popular, but its language is not as modern as the
ESV, and in many cases it is not as clear as the ESV either. This
passage doesn't illustrate it well, but the big knock on the NIV is
that it is more interpretive. But part of that is that their Greek
translations are more interpretive, whereas their Hebrew translations
are more literal. The big problem with this passage is the NIV
language is a bit out of date.

Now, here's the NLT:

The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his
craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after
night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their
voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the
earth, and their words to all the world. God has made a home in the
heavens for the sun. It bursts forth like a radiant bridegroom after
his wedding. It rejoices like a great athlete eager to run the race.”
(Psalms 19:1-5 NLT-SE)

You can see how the NLT is far closer to the original than the
Message, and yet still quite interpretive in how the words are
translated. In many ways this is my favorite version of this passage.

Now here's where things get interesting. If you've been reading
closely, you see there is a difference in interpretation, with the ESV

My translation:
Day after day pours forth speech, and night after night declares
knowledge.
There is no speech and there are no words, their voice is not heard.

NASB:
Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard.

ESV:
Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.

In my translation, and the NASB's translation, there is no sound.
There is no speech or words that express the speech and knowledge
that day and night declare. The ESV looks at "pours out speech" and
"not heard" as being contradictory, and therefore resolves them by
changing the phrase to include their voice in every speech and language.

The problem is that the Hebrew does not support their conclusion, but
it seems to make more sense their way. This is a case of the ESV team
making an interpretive change to the text.

The NLT has changed "their measuring line" or "line" to message,
which does not have Hebraic support either. Each of these
translations has tried to clarify the passage, but have obscured the
obscure meaning of the original text, and may have changed what the
text is actually trying to say. That is the rub.

The ESV may be right. Or they may be very wrong. The NLT may be
right, but the Hebrew word qaw does not mean message, it means line
or measuring cord. The ESV also changes the primary verb in verse 5,
from rejoicing to running. In this particular passage the ESV has
made some very difference choices from the rest. There are several
possibilities why this is so. One, they may have access to better
manuscripts or other materials that the older translations did not
have. That is possible, but that might also be giving them too much
credit. The Septuagint (greek translations of the hebrew text) and
the Latin Vulgate also focus on the rejoicing, not the running.
Therefore, it is likely that the ESV is not correct in how they have
translated this verse.

It's funny that the passage I've chosen happens to be one that the
ESV misses, when it is my current favorite translation. I chose this
passage because I put a great deal of work into my translation and am
very confident in it. Other translations I have done are fast, this
one was for a paper and I spent a lot of time trying to get it
exactly right.

The goal of every translation is to try to give us the best English
approximation of the original meaning of the text. This is a
difficult task. Another problem is that every translation includes
some of the theology of the translator. We may not like to think
that, but it's true. Let's look at an example of this:

Gen. 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

This is a very good translation, IMHO (ESV, by the way). Now, as
evangelicals, we don't necessarily like "bruise" because it doesn't
sound very bad. The NIV has a more "evangelical friendly" translation:

Gen. 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and
between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you
will strike his heel.”

Now we have Jesus CRUSHING the serpent's head, and the serpent
striking his heel. Now Jesus sounds like the terminator and the
serpent sounds impotent.

So, what about the JPS-Tanakh? This is a Jewish translation:

Gen. 3:15 ¶ I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between
your offspring and hers; They shall strike at your head, And you
shall strike at their heel.”

Hmmm. Now it sounds a lot more like emnity between the serpent and
the nation of israel, and the blows aren't fatal, they are merely
attacks.

So what's going on?

Well, first off, the Hebrew word translated as "strike" or "bruise"
is Shoof. The only difference between the two spellings is second
person or third person. So the NIV is the least accurate of the non-
Jewish translations, as it uses two different words. They should be
the same, they were in the original text. You can choose strike or
bruise, but you should be consistent. They both are in the same verb
tenses and stems.

What about the JPS. Is it right?

In a word: No. The verb for "strike/bruise" is 3rd/2nd person
masculine singular. In other words: he and you. Likewise, everything
about the ownership of heel is singular. They have (in my view)
intentionally mistranslated this passage to remove the understanding
of this verse as pointing towards Jesus. They have turned singular
phrases into plural ones.

So in this case the ESV is the best translation, the NIV is somewhat
accurate but misleading, and the JPS is downright misleading. This is
why I took the time to study the original languages. Otherwise, how
would I really know that the JPS was wrong?

How about this passage?

Ezek. 2:1 ¶ He said to me, “Son of man, stand up on your feet and I
will speak to you.” (ESV)

JPS:

Ezek. 2:1 ¶ And He said to me, “O mortal, stand up on your feet that
I may speak to you.”

Notice anything? The JPS has translated the Hebrew phrase "ben adam"
as "O Mortal" rather than "Son of Man" While this is accurate, the
phrase basically means "mortal" they have gone with a less literal
translation (ben=son adam=man, hebrew construct = son of man) to
obscure the common language with one of the phrases Christ used.

So my point is that the theology of the translator does come into the
translation. The goal is to pick a translation that does as little
editorializing as possible. Again, I think the ESV is the winner here
for accuracy. The Gen 3:15 passage is clearly better in the ESV than
in the NIV or JPS. The TNIV does not fix this problem on the part of
the NIV, by the way.

Another problem is gender neutrality. This creates huge uproar in
evangelical circles.

Here is a great example of the problem:

Rev. 3:20 ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My
voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with
him, and he with Me. (NASB)
Rev. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my
voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him,
and he with me. (ESV)
Rev. 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears
my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he
with me. (NIV)
Rev. 3:20 Listen! I am standing at the door and knocking! If anyone
hears my voice and opens the door I will come into his home and
share a meal with him, and he with me. (NET)
Rev. 3:20 Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my
voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and
you with me. (NRSV)
Rev. 3:20 Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears
my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and
they with me. (TNIV)

Now, the problem here is simple: The translations by the NASB, ESV
and NIV are as close to perfect as you can get. They are very
accurate translations of the original Greek. But do people reading it
understand it? As Christians, we look at this passage and think
"Jesus is saying that anyone who responds to His voice will have the
opportunity to dine with Him and have Him in their home." The problem
is that research has shown that for people who do NOT have a church
background, they are more likely to read this verse as applying to
men only. Now this is where things get tricky. I can explain in a few
minutes the issue of gender usage in the bible, and they will
understand that "him" and "he" are generic terms for a person. When
they read, they will have to translate this in their head. Or, as a
translator, I could try to make this clearer. How would I make this
clearer? By removing the "he" and placing a singular gender-neutral
pronoun in its place.

The problem is that English does not have a clear, singular gender-
neutral pronoun. The closest thing we have is "they" which, by the
way, has many singular uses in our culture. For example "A member of
our group bought a TV, but they didn't like it so they returned it"

So the NRSV tried to solve the problem without using "they" which
COULD be construed as being plural, but they have created a direct
second person tense to this verse (you) that is not there, so they
have obscured the verse and made, IMHO, an unacceptable sacrifice in
accuracy.

The TNIV has, IMHO, the best translation here. But it drives the
Evangelicals NUTS because "them" and "they" COULD imply that Jesus
will only eat with a group of people, not an individual. This is a
valid argument, but not the best one. While it is possible, the terms
have a clear singular use in the English language, so the passage
does not insist on plural understanding. Because the non-gender
neutral pronouns are known to confuse people who do not have
Christian backgrounds, it is, again IMHO, the lesser of the evils to
have the potential of someone reading this as a plural only event
than have a woman or young girl read this as excluding her.

And after all that, who uses the word "Behold!" anymore?

So, hopefully this gives you a basic understanding of some of the
issues at hand.

Now, on to the question of which is the best translation... :-)

The best approach is to use more than one translation. Let me give
you a caveat: I think when you teach or write, you should try to
stick to one translation exclusively unless they mistranslate
something. I say this for two reasons. One, it is important to give
people the understanding that, for the most part, their bible is
accurate. I think when we use ten translations in ten citations we
open people up to feeling like they cannot trust their bible or they
have no hope of really understanding it unless they are willing to
read ten translations simultaneously. Two, it is important that we
really look to see what the passage is saying, not look for a
translation that supports what we WANT the passage to say. The
Genesis 3:15 passage I cited above is a good example of this.

So, understanding that for study you should use more than one
translation, but you should publicly try to stick to one, let's
evaluate a few translations:

KJV - Yeah, nobody here really thinks they should use this. There are
problems with the KJV that are worth understanding though. (1) It is
translated from the greek text known as "Textus Receptus" which does
not use the best manuscripts, and is quite different than the better
greek texts. (2) It is translated without the benefit of the last 400
years of scholarly research. A lot has been learned in those 400
years about the texts, the culture, etc. (3) Very few people
understand 400 year old English clearly.

NKJV - A pretty good literal translation that sounds a lot like the
verses you might have memorized as a kid, but with better english and
no "thees" and "thous" The problem is that it is translated from the
Textus Receptus, which doesn't hold a candle to the better modern
manuscripts. As a result, some readings can be very different. I like
this bible for memorizing, but I don't use it for study or teaching.

RSV - Probably the most popular bible in scholarly circles, this
version from the 1950's is very accurate and seems to be reasonably
free of bias. The problem is that it's 50 years old, has 50 year old
english, and its gender accuracy is confusing to many modern readers
without a Christian background.

NRSV - Accepted in scholarly circles, not so popular in churches.
Some odd choices made in translation (see rev 3:20 above) and many
people accuse it of being "liberal" for translations such as Isaiah
7:14 which translates the Hebrew as "young woman" instead of
"virgin." The problem is that both are correct. Remember my point
about your theology affecting your translation? Not recommended,
there are better choices.

ESV - This was developed as a successor to the RSV (not the NRSV),
and I think it offers the current best balance between readability
and accuracy. Not perfect. It does attempt to address the gender
issue, but footnoting many things such as translations of adelphos as
"brothers" but then putting "or brothers and sisters" in the
footnotes. The problem, IMHO, is that it doesn't go far enough. The
revelation 3:20 passage is a great example of this.

NIV - By _far_ the most popular translation on the market right now.
It is not as accurate as the ESV, but is more readable and generally
is better english. Problems: It is now over 30 years old, and
language has changed. There are some very poorly translated passages
(see Hebrews 11:11), It has the same gender issues as the ESV and
RSV, but doesn't address them as well as the ESV. The biggest
advantage of this translation is that it is well accepted and there
are TONS of resources available such as study bibles etc.

TNIV - A good update to the NIV. They fixed almost all of the
"problem" passages of the NIV (see Hebrews 11:11 again, there are
more but not worth bringing up) and have tried to bring the language
into the 21st century. Problems: Still interpretive, and goes too far
in gender-neutral language (IMHO). They have obscured key meanings in
passages by trying too hard to be gender neutral. This translation
has created a HUGE amount of debate, and so it is not a good choice
to use in teaching or writing, as it will create a headache for you.

NIRV - A "dumbed down" version of the NIV. Avoid.

Message - This is a great devotional, but I have great concern about
considering it scripture. Eugene Peterson is a brilliant man with a
great knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, but he is only a man. When you
read the message you are taking at face value Eugene's
interpretations of each passage. Any difficult meanings will be
decided for you by Eugene, and if he's wrong, you won't be able to
decide that for yourself. This may be a great tool for some, but not
for me.

NET - The best part of this translation is the translation notes.
They are very helpful in understanding the original language and why
passages are translated a certain way. To be honest, I often times do
not like their translation, but the notes are awesome. I highly
recommend this version, with the notes, for personal study. I would
not teach or write from this version.

NLT - This is an attempt to make a "Living Bible" that is not a
paraphrase, but a translation. It is very readable and popular for
devotions. The problem is that it is very interpretive. A couple of
years ago I had a long argument with a friend of mine about a
theological issue. We went back and forth, and it ultimately came
down to the fact that he was reading a passage in the NLT. At one
point he said "You need to read this in the NLT" to which I replied
"No, you need to read it in a translation that is accurate!" The end
result? The NLT interpretation was wrong. I don't remember the
passage anymore, because it was a good natured argument between
friends, but it taught me a lesson about the potential danger of
highly interpretive translations. I think this is a good translation
for personal devotions and study as long as you have another
translation handy when you find a passage challenging or saying
something different than you thought it did...

God's Word - Not well known, pretty interpretive, doesn't read that
well. It's an attempt to be easy to understand, but I think it misses
the mark.

NASB95 - Very accurate, not good english, hard to read and memorize.
I think this is a great bible to use for personal study, but the
language is a bit too cryptic for teaching. It's fine to use for
writing, but not necessarily your best choice.

JPS Tanakh - Old Testament Only, obviously. Not a very good
translation. I always look at their translations after I have done a
Hebrew translation, and the JPS surprises me at how far off it is at
times.

New World Translation - Jehovah's Witness version of the bible that
is specific to their theology and uses the word "Jehovah" a lot.
Interesting, that, since Jehovah is a mistake made by taking the
consonants for Yahweh and the Vowels for Adonai and combining them.
But I digress. Obviously you want to avoid this one. Not even
remotely accurate.

HCSB - This is a translation made by the southern baptists in
response to the TNIV. It is very southern baptist. It may be a great
translation, but it is going to suffer from the gender confusion
issues discussed above. I have no experience with it.

I have no experience with the Catholic translations so I cannot
comment on those.

There are many other translations out there. I have only covered a
few of the more popular ones. My personal favorite is the ESV. I use
it for personal study, for devotions, and for writing. I use the NIV
whenever I am writing for HDC, as that is our "official" translation.
The ESV is not perfect, however. You saw by my Psalms 19 example that
they can mistranslate passages in their interpretation. They also do
not go far enough in trying to clarify the gender specific language
in the bible.

Honestly, when asked for the perfect bible to give a non-believer I
don't have a good answer right now. The ESV is a great tool, but the
gender issues might be a problem. The NIV is nice and easy to read
but a little out of date and has more gender issues than the ESV. The
TNIV goes too far in the quest to clarify gender language and ends up
obscuring passages. The NLT is very easy to read but too
interpretive, putting too much reliance on someone else's understanding.

And that, in a nutshell, is why we have so many translations. I think
we still need another...

If you asked me for the perfect bible to give to a non-Christian I
would probably go with either the TNIV or the NLT, and then down the
road introduce them to the ESV, but I don't like those options. And
so I keep studying :-)

Joel