Stupid Scholar

Several years ago, the TNIV (Today’s New International Version) sparked some controversy by, among other things, using gender inclusive language throughout the text.

For instance, in Psalm 1:1, the text reads:

Blessed are those
who do not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers

The NIV on the other hand reads:

Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

Likewise, terms like “sons of Israel” (Exodus 13:19; NIV) are often changed to “Israelites,” but not every time.

I remember at the time being rather upset by this. It felt as if the translators had tampered with the Word of God in order to accommodate the current trends, philosophies, and sensitivities of our (post)modern culture. Now, however, I think my view is a bit more nuanced.

Gender Inclusive Language is Appropriate and Beneficial

Because of our awareness to cultural diversity, differing opinions and various assumptions, much in our culture is more sensitive and understanding to such differences than before. This has made, in particular, scholarly discussions more open and welcoming than ever. The academic world of biblical studies is nothing if not diverse. The same is true of churches. This is a good thing.

More specifically, like most professions throughout history, biblical Studies and theology have been dominated by men. In our day, however, there are a large number of great, female scholars (Phyllis Tribble, Susan Niditsch, Kathleen O’Connor, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, et al). Plus, there are huge numbers of women that read the Bible for pleasure, spiritual development or worship. Thus, the move towards gender inclusive language has attempted to make these women sense that the Bible speaks to them too.*

Linguistics, in fact, help support this move.

Both Greek and Hebrew use masculine terms to refer to groups of both men and women. Hence the word אנשׁים (plural of אישׁ, meaning “man”) can refer to either a group of men (”Elders” in Ruth 4:2) or to a general group of people (”When sleep falls on men/people” in Job 4:13). The singular אישׁ can also refer to a person or mankind in general (e.g. Exodus 11:7).

Likewise, the word בנים (plural of בנ, meaning “son”) can refer to a mixed gender group. A great example is the common OT phrase, בני ישׂראל, which literally means, “Sons of Israel” but clearly refers to the entire group of Israelites. Thus, either “Children of Israel” or “Israelites” are perfectly acceptable translations.

This is also true in the New Testament where ανθρωπος often simply means, “Person” (e.g. Matthew 4:4) While sometimes it is gender specific (e.g. Matthew 19:10), in the plural, it perhaps best translated as, “People.”

In short, Hebrew has no neuter declension (a gender-neutral “it”). It is impossible for Hebrew to express a generic group or a person in general without resorting to masculine language, as shown above. Greek has a neuter declension, but it never uses it to describe people only things or ideas.

We actually have modern day examples for this. Spanish, for example, has masculine and feminine nouns and pronouns. However, it does not have a neuter. Thus, in the plural ellos is masculine and literally means, “Those men/boys/males” but more often than not just means, “They/them” without being gender specific. Likewise, the common term for parents is padres which literally means, “Fathers.” Nevertheless, the term is almost universally used to refer to both parents at the same time.

Notice that we don’t suggest that translators are distorting the message of a Mexican speaker writer when they translate ellos as “They” and padres as “Parents.” Neither should we automatically suggest that the TNIV and others distort the message of Scripture with gender inclusive language.

Cautions for Using Gender Inclusive Language

All that having been said, I do not want to suggest that I advocate gender inclusive language in all instances. While our culture has become more sensitive to such issues, we must admit that the Bible was not. There is no getting around the fact that the Bible is very andro-centric (male-centered).** The Bible is an ancient text, not a modern one. We should not force it into our image.

For instance, at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, James stands up and says, ανδρες αδελφοι (”men, brothers!”) This text must be translated in the masculine. It is clear from the context that only the elders and apostles were present for this council, not women. Gender neutral language here would obscure the text.

Furthermore, we must be careful so as not to distort theological meanings of the text. Some passages may look like appropriate for a gender neutral translation, but because the text has a certain theological (e.g. messianic or Christological) implication, it ought to be translate as masculine.

The Church throughout the centuries has seen Psalm 1:1 (above) as refering to Christ Himself. Christ is the blessed man who does not walk in the counsel of wicked, stand in the way of sinners, or sit in the seat of mockers. While this allusion could be made using gender inclusive language, this interpretation can become somewhat shrouded by such inclusiveness.

Similarly, we must realize that God is described mostly in masculine language. God is Father and Jesus is Son. Because of the cultural world in which the Bible was written, these terms have significance beyond most glosses (e.g. Creator, Sustainer, Redeemer, etc). The role of a father in Israel included procreation, provision, discipline, relationship, etc. Other modern glosses simply don’t capture this full range of meaning.

Conclusion

Therefore, gender inclusive language on the whole does not distort the biblical text, and we should not fear or oppose it unilaterally. Nevertheless, we must let the ancient text be an ancient text. If and when we use gender inclusive language, we must be very careful to avoid changing or shrouding meanings (theological or otherwise) implied in the original, masculine language.

*While we shouldn’t doubt that women throughout history doubted that God speaks to them through His Word, translations like the TNIV and others have tried to make this more explicit.

** Note: Andro-centrism does not necessarily imply misogyny. I am certainly more feline-centric (I prefer cats), but that does not mean that I am misocanine (I don’t mistreat dogs).

Image Credit: DeusXFlorida

In light of the recent Valentine’s holiday, I figured now was as good as any to pick up the series on love again.  If you haven’t already done so, please check out the first installment where we saw that love was the prime spiritual gift.

In this brief reflection, I want to just focus on the first verse of 1 Corinthians 13. Here St. Paul says, “If I speak in human or angelic tongues but do not have love, I become a noisy gong or a wailing cymbal.” (own translation)

There is not an absolute ton that needs to be addressed here, but this sets the stage for what is going to come next. In a way, it serves as a basic summary of the role that love should play within our lives and within our churches. As great as the spiritual gift of tongues (or any gift, really) is, without love, it is simply obnoxious.

Speaking in tongues is quite a remarkable gift. It allows the believer to be to communicate with others of any language without needing a translator (see Acts 2:1-13) or possibly even speak in a language that angels and understand. It is also a spiritual gift, which means it comes directly from God. It is not something that can be learned, taught, or conjured up on one’s own.

This is a spectacular gift and very few people are able to do it. At Pentecost, God used tongues to establish Christ’s Church in this world through sinful, human beings (Acts 2:1-13). This was a once in a universe event, and for someone to follow in such footsteps would be spectacular and quite worthy of mention.

And yet St. Paul says that without love this amounts to just a noisy nuisance. Here is why: cymbals and gongs, when not played in appropriately and in tune with the rest of the orchestra are just noise.

The average orchestra nowadays has about 100 instruments all playing together. If everyone plays in tune, at the right time, and in cooperation with the rest of the musicians, the music sounds superb. But who wants to hear a cymbal by itself? Who looks forward to the gong solo? When these instruments play their part in the midst of the symphony, they add to and enhance the entire band. However, on their own, they are obnoxious, loud and painful to the ears.

Just like loveless spiritual gifts.

The Almighty God through His Holy Spirit has enabled all of us with spiritual gifts (see 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12). He has gifted His faithful followers with abilities that can only be explained as coming from above. Many of us can teach, understand deep spiritual ministries, compassionately help and fill needs, or even speak in spiritual ways. And he has placed all of us in a divinely-created orchestra called “The Church.”

As Christians, we do not live in isolation but in community with other believers. The gifts that God gives us are intended to be used for the furthering and building up of that community, not ourselves. When we seek to build up or exalt ourselves, we do so at the expense of every other instrument, and the music sounds horrendous. However, when we seek to use our God-given gifts to build up the symphony – those believers around us – we enhance and strengthen the orchestra, and the music is sweet indeed.

Just imagine a church where everyone plays their part for the betterment of others.

Thus, St. Paul gives us two options: love others and beautify the symphony of the church or go it alone and be a noisy, wailing band of one.

I was recently instructed to be wary of reading the Bible academically.  To do so, it was claimed, could potentially hurt me spiritually.  From the academic perspective, the Sacred Text becomes no more than a mere text book, and the whole endeavor becomes an exercise of scholarship rather than spiritual and personal devotion, reflection and growth.

At the risk of poo-pooing such a notion, this is one that I do not fully understand.  I have now been involved in some form of biblical academia for over 7 years now.  I have studied the Bible at a seminary, a secular institution, and a religious school.  At no time has the Bible become just a textbook.

In seminary, part of our weekly reading was to read large (I mean large) sections of Holy Writ.  We had to read the entirety of the Old Testament (except Lamentations, for some reason) and the entirety of the New Testament (Acts and Romans were read twice!).  While I must admit that I did not complete every assignment, I found these assignments to be basically mandated “Quite Times.”  Digesting that much material can be difficult and daunting, but I found it far from spiritually harmful.

Furthermore, as I have begun studying God’s Word in more “academic” depth, I have found it to be far more complex, profound, and amazing than I had ever considered.  Understanding the Hebrew and Greek, as well as the literary features, history of the text and culture of the nation only add to this.  Wordplays, implicit theological arguments, cultural implications, etc. abound, and they all serve to highlight God’s  power, wisdom, mercy and love.  The more I learn, the more I realize I do not understand, and this makes my God seem bigger and bigger than before.

In short, my intellectual knowledge either leads to or is equated with my spiritual knowledge.  I do not believe that the academic has harmed my soul, or the soul’s of many in my position, in any way. I certainly do not doubt God’s Word or question its authority.

Does this mean that I have grown spiritually in the past seven years?  Perhaps, but I am not sure I would make that claim. My sin is still obvious, prevalent, and stronger than I desire.  My arrogance, selfishness, and lust are, sadly, still hanging about.  I long for the day when they will depart forever. Kyrie Eleison! While my mind and heart understand more of God’s character and commands, my will is often too rebellious. “The Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak,” as Our Lord warned. Nevertheless, this seems to be in spite of my intellectual growth, not because of it.

So I thank God for what He has shown me in His excellent Word. I praise Him for His Revelation of Himself to humanity and for teaching sinners like me. And I pray for deliverance from the hold that sins has upon me and vice versa. I also pray that others would have the opportunity to learn some of what I have gleaned. Far from it being an exercise in my abilities, I am convinced all the more that anything I have learned has been by His grace, mercy and love.

To Him alone be the glory, now and forever. Amen!

1 Corinthians 13 is quite famous for being the “Love Chapter” of the Bible. It is often seen on plaques and cards given out at weddings, used to sign love letters, and portions are memorized by Sunday School classes. It is even engraved on the pavement beside the gates of the Queensberry House of the Scottish Parliament.  How cool (crazy?) is that?

Setting of 1 Corinthians

However, as sweet and wonderful as this passage most assuredly is, it is often misunderstood and, worse it is mis- or under- applied. St. Paul writes the Love Chapter towards the end of a letter to a church suffering from division, selfishness, and strife. It was not meant as a “sweet nothing” that parishioners would whisper in each others’ ear.

Rather it was meant as a stern correction against otherwise uncharitable behavior. Indeed, the Christians in the Corinthian church were most unloving and uncaring.  If you read through the book, you see that they were very self-centered and divisive.  Some would even gorge themselves and send others home hungry (chapter 11).  St. Paul writes 1 Corinthians 13 to remind, rebuke, and reinvigorate these <i>Christians</i> to care for each other rather than look out for themselves.

Context of 1 Corinthians 13

More specifically, St. Paul writes this passage in the middle of a larger section on spiritual gifts. In chapter 12, the apostle discusses the fact that the Spirit of God has given different gifts to different Christians. Simply because one person has a certain gift does not mean that he or she is superior to those who do not. Likewise, no gift can survive on its own. The Church is a body made up of many parts, and each part depends upon the others.

Likewise, in chapter 14, St. Paul discusses the gifts of prophecy and tongues in a little more depth. He encourages the believers to seek out prophecy more than tongues, since the former benefits the entire community, where the latter benefits only the individual. He also encourages these Christians that they should use their gifts but in decent, orderly ways so that everyone may be edified.

Love as the Prime Spiritual Gift

Now what does all this have to do with love?  Sandwiched between these two chapters dealing with spiritual gifts, 1 Corinthians 13 almost seems out of place. What does love have to do with tongues, prophecy, wisdom, and miracles?

It seems to me that Paul thinks that love is one of the spiritual gifts! Love comes from the Spirit of God, and is for the benefit of the whole church.

Now Paul didn’t find it necessary to define the other spiritual gifts; there is no, “Speaking in tongues means…”  Think of all the current controversy over that one! Yet Paul spends an entire chapter (13 verses in all) talking about what love is. Thus, Paul thinks that not only is love a spiritual gift but that it is the most important spiritual gift. It is essential for the church.  Love is the prime spiritual gift.

In fact, in the last verse of chapter 12, St. Paul tells the Corinthians, “Earnestly desire the greater gifts. Now, I will show you an even more excellent way.” Of all the spiritual gifts, love is the best. So I’m planing to take several weeks and study this most excellent way.

Care to join me?

It’s been a while, but last time we critiqued both sides of the worship wars. The basic conclusion was that both sides are flawed for various reasons. Thus, style should not and cannot be the main issue. A focus on style is quite simply a bad priority.

Today, we will focus on some important passages of Scripture that deal with worship. I admit two things upfront.  First, this is a small, selective group of passages. It is impossible to address every passage in one post. I will most certainly miss some texts, and my biases will probably govern what I write. Second, this post is, nevertheless, rather long. This is a bit technical, and I ask that you stay with me.  I hope you will it useful.

Image Credit: ShutterScript

Isaiah 6: Isaiah in the Presence of God

I begin here because many people on both sides of the argument, myself included, are too comfortable in worship. We “enter the presence of God” and we are at ease, each in our own way. The contemporary side makes things comfortable by trying to appeal to the culture. The traditional side often falls into the, “We’ve always done it this way,” form of comfort.

However, in this passage, Isaiah sees a vision of The Lord Almighty. He enters into a throne room, where even God’s robe fills the temple. It is an awe-inspiring, fearful scene for sure, and the prophet is not at east. Instead, he calls out in terror, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips” (ESV).

Ever since the time when Adam and Eve sinned, every time a person enters into the presence of the most holy God , that person is immediately confronted with his or her own unholiness. Being in God’s presence is frightening. Adam and Eve cowered in fear when God appeared (Genesis 3:8), the Israelites refused to approach God on Mt. Sinai (Exodus 20:18-21), and even the Apostle John fell in fear when Jesus appeared on Patmos (Revelation 1:17). God’s presence is not comfortable, for we are unclean people with unclean lips.

Sadly, we have turned God into a buddy at the expense of His Majesty and glory. Yes, He is our friend (John 15:15), and it is not inappropriate to emphasized that.  Yet He is also our King (Psalm 29:10), and this cannot be forgotten. As we come to approach the King of Kings, let us remember that Our God is an Awesome God. Entering into is His presence can be uncomfortable, even fearful, for we are not worthy to be in His presence at all. Thus, may our worship never become ordinary or easy.

Image Credit: JDurham

Exodus 20-31: Details Matter

Clearly, I’m not going to discuss 12 whole chapters. What I want to highlight is how “nit-picky” God’s commands about worship and life can be. In these 12 chapters, we learn the 10 Commandments and read details about altars, the Sabbath, the Ark of the Covenant, the lampstand, the curtains for the tabernacle, and even the clothes of the priests. Exact dimensions and specific materials are divinely ordained. It is very precise.

We learn from this that God cares about details.  He has a way by which He wants to be worshiped.  He is the King, and He has the right to define how He is to be honored.  As we approach the New Testament, we should expect to see such particulars – either in specifics (dress, postures, locations, etc.) or in guiding principles. Then we would do well to adhere as closely as possible to what we find.  Again, He is the King.

It is easy to label such exactness as legalistic and works-based. However, legalism, by definition, only applies to salvation via works. When it comes to being obedient and honoring the King, we are not being legalistic when we pay attention to details and do what God says. Indeed, we are obligated to pay attention to them, as we will see below.

Image Credit: Tina Manthorpe

Leviticus 10: Nadab and Abihu’s Dangerous “Worship”

We now look at two men who were at one time very privileged, Nadab and Abihu. They were two of Aaron’s sons, and, along with Moses, Aaron and the 70 elders, were even able to come near to God at Sinai (Exodus 24:1-2). They were consecrated as priests and served before the Lord. They were important worship leaders of their time.

However, eventually, they decided to do things their own way and offered “strange” fire to the Lord, which God had not commanded (Leviticus 10:1). The Lord was not pleased at all. Immediately, and perhaps ironically, a strange fire came up out of the ground and consumed them.  Yahweh was rightfully angry because Nadab and Abihu, who should have known better, did not follow the details.

A similar story occurred with Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1-7). We don’t know exactly what Cain did wrong, but he clearly knew what he ought to have done (Genesis 4:6-7). Nevertheless, he didn’t do it, and he too incurred God’s anger.

All throughout the Old Testament (1 Samuel 15; 2 Samuel 6; and the Prophets), and even in the New (maybe Acts 5:1-11; and surely 1 Corinthians 11), we see that God does not appreciate His people “doing worship” their own way. He wants His detailed commands for worship to be followed.  After all, He is the King. That deviations from the commands occasionally resulted in death should remind us that this is serious business.  Who are we to decide how God should be worshiped?

Image Credit: Wagner Campelo

Excursus: Worship in Light of Christ

You may have noticed that much of what I have cited is Old Testament passages. This is because the Old Testament is far more detailed and lucid about what God requires in worship. Old Testament worship was centered around sacrifices, and theologians have long recognized that Christ’s sacrifice was the epitome and completion of those sacrifices. Calvary was the epitome and fulfillment of Israel’s worship, as a whole.

Hence, it is, at first, reasonable to assume that our worship today need not be as detailed and exact. There is merit to this, especially, since there is no New Testament equivalent of Leviticus or Exodus. Nevertheless, I would argue that there is more reason to worship and praise God now that the fulfillment has come and King Jesus has taken His place at the right hand of the Father.

The fact that we have no divinely inspired Book of Worship only means we need to work harder with the Books He has given, in order to understand how our God wants us to worship Him now. The commands (or principles) are there; we just need to find them.

Image Credit: Imelenchon

Matthew 22:34-40 and 1 Corinthians 10:31: The Purpose of Worship

We end here for good reason; this reminds us why we do what we do on Sunday mornings. In our age of self indulgence, we are naturally drawn to do things the way we want and desire. If it doesn’t make us happy or suit our needs, then we quickly dismiss or change it.

However, as we have seen, worship is about God, not about us. The greatest commandment Christ has given us is to Love God will all our hearts, souls, and minds. By definition, love is not self-seeking (1 Corinthians 13:5). Rather, it seeks to serve and to please another; in this case, God. We don’t typically give our wives bowling balls or our husbands ballet tickets, because that is not what they want; that’s what we want.

Likewise, when we gather to worship God, and hence, love Him completely, we should make sure we’re not giving God what we want. We worship God because we love Him, and show our love by doing what He desires.

Finally, Paul tells us to glorify God in all that we do, even eating and drinking (1 Corinthians 10:31). If this is true of our daily lives, how much more so when we gather together, as Christ’s Body, to exult Him above everything else. Our goal, our purpose, and our passion in worship is to glorify Him above all. That is why we do what we do, especially in worship.

Conclusion

When we come to worship God, our hearts, souls, and minds must be centered on loving, serving, pleasing, and glorifying Him alone. This is what it means to be a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1-2). That is what it means to worship. Loving and glorifying God need to be the main priorities of our worship services, not style.

In order to accomplish these goals, we need to turn to what God says about Himself and how He desires to be approached. We turn to to the Bible, for that is where God reveals Himself (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Remember it is about Him, not about us.

Therefore, next time we will look at some key elements of worship – those things which are non-negotiable. We will also look at some things which are important, but perhaps not necessary. We will examine passages, mainly in the New Testament, which discuss how we should worship the King.

Until then, please leave your comments…. That is assuming you’re still awake after reading this major rambling. May the Lord be with you!

In words that I would never have been capable of articulating, this is why I am a biblical scholar.

Sacred Scripture so incomparably transcends all human knowledge and learning that I am reduced to silence. It proclaims the truth; calls to the heavenly fatherland; changes the heart of the reader from earthly desires to embracing higher ones. It challenges the strong with its more obscure expressions, while attracting little ones with simple speech. It is not so inaccessible that one should be frightened, nor so obvious that it becomes cheap. Familiarity with it takes away boredom; and the more one meditates on it, the more one loves it. It helps the soul of the reader with simple words, raises it with sublime meanings. In a certain sense it grows with the one who reads. The uneducated, in part, appraise it, while on the other hand the learned are always finding new things in it.

- St. Gregory the Great, Moral Commentary on Job, XX.1 (circa 600).

I am so privileged to be able to spend my time studying the Sacred Text. I only wish that my admiration for it and for the God it proclaims were greater. I agree with Gregory that the Bible is both simple and extremely complex; shallow and very deep. May the Lord speak to all of us, as we read, study, and learn from His Word.

Image Credit: Mike Baird

I don’t have any children of my own. However, I have many friends whose children I consider an extension of my own family. I love watching the little rugrats explore, play, smile, sing, and especially laugh. Whether they’re hyper Americans or crazy, rosy-cheeked Scots, they are truly delights and joys.

Scripture speaks repeatedly of the blessing of children. The Psalms, the histories, and even the Gospels are replete with references to the sheer joy of raising children and furthering the family. In fact, the Holy Bible never suggests that children are a hindrance, burden, nuisance, or even an option. Perhaps this is no more explicit than in Psalm 127:3-5.

3 Even now, children are an inheritance from the Lord.
A reward is the fruit of the womb.
4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, are children of youth.
5 Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.
He will not be ashamed when his enemies speak at the gate.
(My translation)

There are several metaphors here that highlight the wonderment of children. Children are called an inheritance, a reward, and even arrows. The words are ripe with meaning, and were very significant to the original Israelite audience.

Image Credit: Jinx (Kat)

Some of the greatest things in the Old Testament are referred to as an inheritance. For example, each tribe’s portion of the Promise Land was called an inheritance (Numbers 18:23-24; 34:5; Deuteronomy 4:38; 15:4), and Israel itself is called the Lord’s inheritance (Deuteronomy 4:20). There is deep sense of blessing, intimacy, and dependence upon God implied by the term inheritance. Inheritances are precious, undeserved, and wonderful, and so are little children.

Likewise, rewards were highly treasured. The lineage and blessings promised to Abraham were called rewards (Genesis 15:1); a reward is given to those who sow righteousness (Proverbs 11:18); and a reward acts as the wages given for hard work (Genesis 30:28, 32; Exodus 2:9; Deuteronomy 24:15). Rewards were tied to the undeserved promises of God, as well as to prudence and diligence.

Finally, arrows formed an important tool among the arsenal of a warrior. Arrows were terrifying weapons, as they could destroy an enemy from a distance. If a warrior was well equipped with arrows, he would probably not be touched in battle. A full quiver meant strength, victory, and even life.

And such are children. Children – little boys and girls, young men and women, grown sons and daughters – are God-given blessings. They are undeserved, and yet they are the fruit of marital labor. They remind us that we are children of God, the fruit of His labor throughout history. Children are precious, valuable, beautiful, and necessary. They exemplify the joy and newness of life, and remind us that there is the hope of victory for the future. Indeed, they are new creations, made in the image of our Lord.

There is a vast chasm separating families that love and cherish their children and those that are bothered or inconvenienced by them. It is true that children are loud, expensive and require a great deal of patience, responsibility, and all-too-often lacking energy. Yet, they are still our reward, inheritance, and quiver of hope. Families that realize this exemplify an unparalleled sense of compassion, understanding, and encouragement not only among their own children, but often to other people, as well.

Image Credit: {Karen}

Likewise, churches and communities that cherish children as much as this Psalm does are typically happy, welcoming, patient, and encouraging places. They are not bothered by immaturity but strive to help the young grow strong and wise. They appreciate laughter and smiles, and they realize that God does too. They cultivate love, and they fan the flames of joy.

How truly a great and wonderful gift children are! How comforting and encouraging it is to see Scripture proclaim this so clearly. I cannot wait until my quiver is full, but I am very thankful that I can reap a harvest of joy from the children around me. I am very glad that the churches I have attended are appreciative of the blessing of children. It is a lot of fun to stand in the midst of a swarm happy, rosy-cheeked rugrats.

A friend just told me about a group of conservatives who are putting together a new translation of the Bible. This project, called The Conservative Bible Project, aims to correct and surpass all of the “liberal” Bible translations (ex: NIV and ESV) in our pews.  Please take the time read about the CBP using the link provided before you continue here.  You may also want to read the reviews by Mark Shea and The Huffington Post.

The Positives of the Conservative Bible Project

The CBP is right to understand that translation implies interpretation. This is denied by virtually no one. Indeed, it is impossible to translate a text, especially a religious one, without inserting one’s own bias or preferences.  Thus, the CBP is correct that a liberal minded translator (or group of translators) may intentionally or inadvertently impose a liberal agenda on the interpretation, which certainly should be avoided.

A decent example might be the modern move to include only gender inclusive language (ex: “people” instead of “men” or “children” instead of “sons”). This can result in Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ (ex. Psalm 1:1) being lost in translation. Clearly, such would be a move away from traditional Christianity, and hesitancy here is understandable.

Furthermore, the CBP is right to suggest that there are false teachers and bad theologies within our churches.  As there is no perfect church, there is no perfect translation.  If a translation leads to erroneous conceptions of God, sin, man, Hell, Jesus, etc., then it should be rejected. 

Ambiguities within the Conservative Bible Project

Nevertheless, I firmly believe the CBP to be ambiguous on certain accounts and down right wrong on others. First, the CBP defines neither “conservative” nor “liberal”. It is completely unclear what is being criticized and what is being upheld. Are they dealing with theological conservatism/liberalism or political conservatism/liberalism?

For instance, the CBP claims that the word, “government,” is a liberal word. However, there is no explanation as to why government is inherently liberal. Is this a theological issue or political issue? The same ambiguity applies to words like comrade, laborer, and fellow. Even God’s name, Yahweh, is considered “liberal wordiness”, and no defense is given. This is confusing to the say the least.

Second, the project is unclear as to whether it desires to present a entirely new translation or build upon the existing King James Version. The project cannot do both, because there are well attested problems with the underlying Greek text, Textus Receptus, of the KJV (see Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament and Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration).

The CBP seems to understand this, but it fails to commit to a new translation. It is unclear how the CBP will decipher which verses/words/sections of the KJV are “defective” and which are not. If the CBP bases its work upon the Textus Receptus, then they will be off to a poor start.

Third, the CBP seems to occasionally not like the Greek itself! In Luke 16:8, the CBP is dissatisfied with the word “shrewdly” because of its “connotations of dishonesty.” They prefer to use “resourceful.” The problem is that the Greek, φρονιμως (phronimos), means, “Shrewdly, wisely, or prudently,” not “Resourceful.” Are they claiming that Luke’s words are too liberal?

Errors of the Conservative Bible Project

Furthermore, there seem to be places where the underlying philosophy and practice of the CBP is in error. The most obvious example is that the CBP equates “conservativism” with God’s truth. However, it is possible – indeed, probable – that the theology behind the CBP is flawed, at least on points. If this is the case, their theology should not be the guiding principle in translation.

Instead, they should acquire serious Greek philologists, linguists, textual critics and grammarians to translate the text as literally (whether word for word or thought for thought) as possible. Then, the CBP should conform its theology to the Biblical text, not the other way around!

For instance, topics such as social justice, which the CBP rejects, are present within the Bible, especially in the OT prophets (ex: Jeremiah and Isaiah). God cares about poor, oppressed, and exploited people. Simply because the CBP is cautious about promoting the “Christian social justice movement” – how they define this is unclear – they should not alter the text.

In short, the CBP seems to be driven by agenda, which is exactly the critique they use against their liberal opponents. Yet if God’s Word actually differs from the CBP’s theology/philosophy, the CBP should alter their philosophy not the Biblical text. The “conservative” agenda should not be allowed to alter God’s Word any more than a “liberal” one should. This is, perhaps, the most serious problem of the CBP.

Furthermore, the CBP appears deficient in its knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. For instance, they claim that the use of “word” in John 1:1 has lost its meaning in modern society – fair enough. Thus, they suggest using “truth” instead. However, the Greek is λογος (logos: word) not αληθεια (aletheia: truth). The former simply does not mean, “Truth,” (see BDAG, 2000, pp. 598-601), and to translate it as such is just wrong.

Finally, the whole project appears to be condescending and pejorative. Anytime there is a potentially liberal word or concept (remember that this includes “Yahweh!”), it is considered a distortion or intrusion. They paint of picture of pseudo-christians infiltrating the church with their radical agenda and who can only be stopped by a conservative vocabulary.

This gives no credit to the politically or theologically liberal scholars who are more qualified than CBP members in understanding Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic language, grammar, morphology, and literature. Even if we assume that the CBP’s theology is perfect, this does not guarantee that they know how to translate and understand ancient texts. Credit should be given where credit is due, but the CBP seems unwilling to acknowledge the skill that so-called “liberals” might possess. This reeks of arrogance and condescension, which is always a bad starting ground for doing the work of God, as the CBP is clearly motivated to do.

Conclusion

I appreciate what the CBP is trying to do. St. Paul was correct in predicting that there would be many false teachers in the church universal, and there certainly are today. However, stamping a movement or translation “conservative” does not solve this problem, and it may even foster it by confusing theological problems with political ones.

I agree with the CBP that new translations of the Bible are needed, especially as modern English changes with time and culture. Nevertheless, new translations should be governed by what the texts actually say, not by what a group wants them to say. Once the meaning of a text is understood, translators should seek to communicate that meaning in the vernacular, as best as possible. Sometimes this might mean using “liberal” vocabulary or even – God forbid! – promoting social justice, because that is what the texts say and mean.

In the end, since the CBP seems more motivated by agenda than faithfulness to the text, I am inclined to see it as biased, unhelpful, flawed, and even misleading. It’s not the kookiness Mark Shea suggests, but it’s not a good idea either.

Today, the Washington Post ran This Story about a gathering of approximately 3,000 Muslims at the Capitol here in DC. The purpose of the gathering was to encourage Muslims, especially those who have been victims of “verbal attacks,” not to be afraid of “America.”

Christians Protest Muslim Prayer Gathering

According to Jacqueline Salmon, author of the article, many of these verbal attacks have come from “conservative Christians,” and the problem has increased since the election of President Obama. Plus, even during the prayer event there were conservative Christians who protested,  some bearing “anti-Islamic” banners.  Several of the prayer organizers even asked that the protests be toned down, and the article reports that some Muslims here feared for their safety.

Now, I am aware that the facts reported here may be overstated; the Christian opposition may have been very small and insignificant; the article does not give numbers.  However, I want to take the article at face value and point out several problems.

Why Protesting Was a Poor Decision Practically

My concerns here  are both practical and theological. First, I’ll start with the practical:

1. This reaction only furthers the problem. The stated reason for the gathering was to deal with Muslim fear garnered because of verbal attacks. To verbally attack this gathering only gives Muslims more reason to fear Christians.

2. Thus, this does nothing to further the Christian cause. Rather than leading to potential Gospel presentations and conversions, this seems to have driven more Muslims away from Christians. Why would they want to talk to another Christian – any Christian – after this?

3. This protest furthers the stereotypes typically thrown at conservative Christians. We are constantly labeled as close-minded, angry, bigoted, loud, disrespectful, and uneducated. I fail to see how this protest has improved our image.

4. This perpetuates the view that Christians desire a Christian nation. Constitutionally, we do not and cannot have an official state religion. So far, that has been a good thing. Yet, when we protest those who legally practice and demonstrate their religion, we lose credibility. Thus, we hurt our own cause for when we protest things that truly should be unlawful (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, etc.).

Why Protesting Was Wrong Theologically

Now, I discuss my theological concerns:
5. Hamad Chebli, quoted in the article, is right, this was disrespectful. Like it or not, the Christian Bible teaches that all men and women are made in the explicit image of God. Hence, everyone bearing the imago Dei must be treated with dignity and respect. We, as Christians, would be appalled, and have been, to have Muslims protest our prayer services and events. It is disrespectful and inappropriate, plain and simple. It is sin.

6. This was rude. Obviously, this is linked to the reason above, but it directly contradicts 1 Corinthians 13:5, which explicitly says, “Love is not rude!” Is protest and insult the best way to love those who need Christ? I think not, for their is not compassion or consideration for their feelings or culture. Plus, this is not how Jesus treated the sinners of His day.

7. This is poor evangelism. St. Paul morphed the way he expressed the Gospel in order to win as many as possible. He became like a Jew to Jews and like Gentile to Gentiles (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). He made sure that the message of the Gospel was communicated in a way that made sense and encouraged those with whom he shared it. Perhaps it’s time we did the same. Surely there are ways of expressing the truth of Christ in a way that is distinctly appealing to Muslims. Rather than protesting, I suggest we begin learning this strategy.

I believe the Gospel to be true, and I believe that everyone – Christian, Muslim, American, European, African, whoever – needs to hear it and believe it. If offense is going to come from the Gospel, let it come from the Message, not the messenger. I fear that in this instance, it was the reverse.

Image Credit: Sheba_Also

A few weeks ago, I wrote about worship. What I wanted to accomplish with the first two posts was to show that the motivations underlying both sides of the issue (contemporary and traditional) are solid and commendable.

Today, I want to look at some of the negatives of both sides. Neither side is perfect, and by pointing out the flaws, we can start to deal with them. I admit that these critiques won’t apply across the board, and some churches will be immune. Nor is this meant to be an exhaustive critique.  These are just some of my general observations, and I look forward to your comments in the combox.

Common Problems

First, let’s look at problems common to both camps:

1. Out of Touch with Church History. This is more obvious in the contemporary side. By removing ancient hymns, architecture, order of service, etc., many modern, contemporary churches have forgotten where they came from, and they are disconnected from the church of yesteryear.

However, this is also a problem for the traditional camp. By only focusing on ancient hymns, etc., many modern, traditional churches have forgotten where they are now. They are disconnected from the church of today.

2. A Tendency Towards Exclusion. This is probably more obvious in traditional churches. Younger generations often don’t feel accepted in churches where slow hymns are the norm, and dressing up is the code. They often feel ignored and not ministered to.

However, this is also a problem for contemporary churches. Older generations often don’t feel accepted where fast-paced praise songs are the norm and suits are out of place. Indeed, they too often feel ignored and miss out on the benefits of ministry.

3. Imbalance of Milk and Meat. By focusing mainly on seekers and young believers, the contemporary side tends to feed its congregation only milk. This is great early on, but as believers mature, they starve.

Likewise, by focusing mainly on believers and those mature in the faith, the traditional side tends to feed only meat. Hence, as non-Christians or new believers come to worship, they choke.

4. Think, Feel, Do. The contemporary side often gets blasted for being overly emotional. They appeal only to emotions and forget about doctrine and holy living. Unfortunately, the traditional side often forgets about emotions altogether, and focuses either only on doctrine or only on holy living. Thus, whereas the contemporary side can become happy-clappy and superficial, the traditional side can become intellectually snobbish or legalistic. The Gospel affects the mind, will, and emotions. We shouldn’t emphasize one to the exclusion of others.

Image Credit: Telmo32

Contemporary Worship Problems

Now, let’s look at problems more common to the contemporary side:

1. Wrong Focus. As admirable as evangelization is, worship is not about that. Worship is about God. The focus should be on loving, honoring, and glorifying Him. If we order our services around evangelism, then we have ordered the worship of God around the standards of people, but God is the one who needs to accept our worship, not the seeker.

2. Over Identification with the Culture. The worship of God is distinctly different from the rest of our lives. What we do on Sunday mornings, we don’t do any other time of the week. Thus, it makes sense, for worship to be different. In fact, this is a good thing. Being in the presence of God shouldn’t look just like our jobs, hobbies, or times with friends. Contemporary worship, however, often attempts to make things so that everyone feels right at home.

3. Forgetting Some Essentials. Public confessions of sin, the offering, and the sacraments are crucial aspects of Christian worship. They shouldn’t be removed, neglected, or pushed to the margins, even in the interests of reaching out. God has commanded them, and we should obey.

Image Credit: Fusion-of-Horizons

Traditional Worship Problems

Finally, let’s look at the problems of traditional worship:

1. No Connection with the Culture. We need to communicate the Gospel in ways that people understand. A missionary in China wouldn’t speak in English. Likewise, a minister here shouldn’t only communicate in old, archaic, irrelevant ways. The Internet, iPods, and affluence have influenced the way people think. It is very important to understand and connect with today’s culture so that the Gospel becomes understandable to people who live in the 21st Century.

2. Ritualism. Because things are often done the same way week in and week out, parts of the service can lose their meaning and vigor, regardless of how well chosen they are. Thus, worship can become rote, and people can easily fall into the, “This is the way we’ve always done it” routine. The worship of God should never be hum-drum.

3. Bad Definition of Reverence. The concept of reverence, as important as it truly is, usually is not well defined. What is inherent about reverence that excludes the joyful, fast, and innovative? This is rarely explained. Too often it seems that reverence is equated with tradition, but reverence is not past tense. There is a lot in modern culture that shows honor and respect, and there is no reason to exclude appropriate, modern reverence.

Conclusion

So what’s the solution? A blended service? Perhaps, but blended services are usually either contemporary services with a hymn or two thrown in OR traditional services with a guitar and drums. It is rare to see a truly blended service. Plus, adherents to both sides are normally turned off by blended services. It’s not reverent enough for the traditionalists and its not relevant enough for the contemporary worshipists. How easy it can become a lose-lose situation.

I think the problem is that the whole argument is focused on style, not on substance. Next time, I want to look at some biblical passages that should be considered when planning a service. I want to try to present substantial principles that should guide our thinking.

Until then, feel free to leave some comments. If you have other critiques of one side or the other, or both, then please let me know. Likewise, if you want to critique me, you’re free to do so. Regardless, may the blessings of God be with you, as you seek to worship and honor Him with your lives.