Relevance

The folks over at Catalyst have an mp3 on file you can download here of an interview with George Barna where he describes why he wrote his book, Revolution. (I found it interesting to hear the man’s actual voice, instead of the one that my mind had created that played in my head any time I read his words. Have you ever been surprised to hear what someone really sounds like…?)

In the interview, Barna describes the frustration he felt after having trained so many church leaders in America for over a decade, while simultaneously coming to the conclusion that very little real life change was taking place as a result. His research revealed many people were leaving the church in order to draw closer to Christ and follow him more fully. He states, “Their call to action was not to go to church, but to be the church.” (Another articulation of this same idea can be found in a short video clip of Mark Driscoll discussing the difference between seeker churches and missional churches. It is taken from a series of short videos that were produced by the speaker lineup at a conference hosted by John Piper dealing with the relevance of Christianity in a post-modern world. I encourage you to check out the others by clicking here.) A lot has been written about Barna’s own personal journey since Revolution came out, some of it quite vindictive, in my view, accusing him of finding what he wanted to find instead of objectively looking at the data he uncovered.

While I am quite convinced that the church of Jesus Christ is and will always be triumphant in any and every culture, I do think his message needs to be heard by all of us who help lead God’s people today. Our answers to his questions must go well beyond simple matters of style. As my good friend, Ken Janke, often points out, what many people want more than anything else from the church today is authenticity. That is far more important to them than cultural relevance!

Witness the iconic stature of Mother Teresa. She never would have won an award for being “hip” or “cool,” yet her influence cut across the entire social spectrum of most every nation on the planet. Why? Because people believed she was real. In their eyes, what she did revealed who she was. Her credibility resulted from her authenticity. Even when people did not agree with what she said, they were willing to listen to her say it, and sometimes her words pierced their hearts. While this phenomenon has probably been true throughout human history, it is particularly the case in our western world. Before post-moderns ever get to the question, “Is it true?” they first ask, “Is it real?” No one I know seriously questions whether or not the diminutive nun from Albania believed and practiced what she preached.

As I read and listen to Barna and Driscoll and Hybels and Stanley and Batterson and a Tall Skinny Kiwi and a host of others like them, I hear God calling the church to a more intentional, active, and winsome engagement with those who do not know Jesus than ever before. In response, my own heart cries out to Him, asking for help for myself and the people I serve, that we might follow Him so closely that people will see right through the outward trappings of the clothing we wear and the music in our worship services and the technological means we acquire and the verbiage we use and everything else that makes up human culture, as beautiful and important and relevant as it is, and see straight into our very hearts to find the Jesus they so desperately need, living there. When that happens, it is amazing how effective He is at drawing them to Himself!

Ben Witherington - Here Come the Pentecostals

Dr. Ben Witherington III is the Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky. His blog posts are often thought-provoking, such as his musings on capital punishment after reading John Grisham's, "The Innocent Man."

His "Here Come the Pentecostals" is an interesting account of his own personal journey, coupled with some theological reflections about what he thinks penteocostals have got right...and wrong, particularly what he sees as an endemic fixation with material prosperity.

Here's his take on "cessationism":

The cessationists argue that God ran out of juice. He used to give people these sorts of gifts in the apostolic age, but once that era was over, and once the canon showed up, such extraordinary spiritual gifts ceased. The chief proof text for this view is, believe it or not, 1 Cor. 13.8-12 which reads "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies they will cease; where there are tongues they will be stilled; where there is knowledge it will pass away. For we know in part and prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child. I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became an adult I put childish ways behind me." Of course that is not all this paragraph says. It goes on to say 'Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror, then we shall see to face to face." What is Paul talking about? When will we see face to face, and know as we are known? Well for sure it was not when the second century A.D. began, nor when the Scriptures were canonized in the fourth century. The cessationists have tended to argue: 1)the word 'perfection' refers to the coming of the canon. When the NT showed up we didn't need these extraordinary spiritual gifts any more. Of course the major problem with that exegesis is that no one in Corinth in the A.D. 50s could possibly have understood Paul to mean 'the NT canon' by the word 'perfection'. And in fact this is not what Paul meant-- he's referring to the eschaton when we see Jesus face to face, when perfection really comes in the person of the Lord, when we finally know Him as we are known. Then indeed we will not need prophecy or tongues, and then indeed our knowledge will cease to be partial. Indeed, then faith will become sight, and hope will be realized, and love will be perfected and go on. There is no chance that the word 'perfection' means the canon here. The context is eschatological, and Paul is looking forward to what will be the case when Jesus returns. This is so very clear in 1 Cor. 15, the resurrection chapter, as well. 2) And of course if you are a student of Church History you know perfectly well the Holy Spirit has not run out of unction to function. Those spiritual gifts have been being poured out in every century since the second century until now. In America of course the Azuza Street Revival in 1905 was a landmark event for Pentecostals. Their growth has been pretty steady since then. We might as well just accept it and come to grips with it, even if its not our cup of tea.

Well worth the reading.

Post-Abortion Syndrome - New York Times

I noticed on the New York Times website a few minutes ago that the number one, most frequently emailed article today is a cover piece from their magazine entitled, “Is There A Post-Abortion Syndrome?” It is not only an interesting, well-written piece (though my own bias on the subject is different from the author's), but I was struck by the fact that it is causing so much of a buzz among the readership of the New York Times, which, though arguably the greatest paper in America from a journalistic perspective, particularly with the recent decline of the Washington Post, is renowned as a bastion of eastern liberalism.

As a pastor, the key takeaway for me is the need to remember that a lot of people in the congregation I serve, and in my sphere of influence in the broader community, carry a lot of guilt for a lot of things, and are in desperate need of a clear sense of forgiveness and "atonement," as the author puts it. Prayers, songs, sermons, dramatic sketches, small groups, etc., that provide a vehicle for expressing repentance, contrition, and the acceptance of forgiveness, are really important and should always play a central part in our worship services.

When I think about it, this was surely one of the great values of historical, structured liturgies in the church across the ages. I recognize, of course, and strongly believe in the finished work of Christ on the cross, and am in no way taking away from that reality or the truth that once our sins are forgiven, they are forgiven forever. In the sight of God, there is no need to ever express sorrow for them again. That said, I am quite sure it would shock most all of us as clergy if we really knew everything that had taking place during the proceeding week in the life of every single person in the audience we address as we stand in the pulpit on any given Sunday!

Let us constantly, and continually, lead them to the cross, where there is full and complete pardon for any and every sin!

NIV vs ESV, continued...

Rick Mansfield left a great comment on my post, "Which translation? NIV or ESV?" I have not yet had the time to read all three of the articles he recommended, but his post on his own blog entitled, "Literal Is Not More Accurate If It's Unintelligible," is well worth reading, for anyone who is interested in the subject of Bible translations.

I had no idea there was so much discussion going on in the blogsphere on the subject of the ESV or that Driscoll's writing was so widely noticed. As I wrote in my comment to Rick's post on this blog, "I have always been amazed at how God so powerfully uses some of the most awkward and pitiful translations to impact people's lives what that is all there is available! ... What a mighty God we serve...!"

Christianity with a taste of Europe

One of the marvels of the internet is how it makes the world so accessible. To get a taste of what evangelical Christianity is like on "the other side of the pond," check out the Christian Today website. (Note: This is NOT the same thing as the U.S. based, Christianity Today website, which is another great online resource.) The British site includes news and articles from a thoroughly Continental perspective.

Another great way to expand your horizons beyond the borders of the U.S. is to check out Christian radio and TV in Europe. Here are links to both of the major Christian radio networks in Britain, UCB and Premier. If you understand French, listen to Radio Phare FM, run by a very dear friend of mine, Pastor Claude Greder of La Porte Ouverte church in Mulhouse, France, and their TV broadcasts.

To get a taste of what British Christian television is like, check out the live, online broadcasts of the God Channel and Premier Christian TV.

Enjoy...!

Which translation? NIV? ESV?

Mark Driscoll out at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, has an interesting post on the Resurgence blog regarding the recent decision he and the elders of that church made to move away from the New International Version (NIV) toward the English Standard Version (ESV), entitled, "Pastoral Reflections on Bible Translations." It's rather lengthy, but well worth reading if you can squeeze in the time, and can be downloaded in pdf format if you would like to print it out.

The first four pages are more of an introduction to the doctrine of inspiration and a study of textual transmission and reliability, than a specific answer to the question of why they switched to the ESV. Beginning with page five (online), he lays a foundation for understanding the difference between word-for-word and dynamic equivilence approaches to translating the Scriptures. He obviously has a healthy appreciation for why both approaches can be a source of blessing to the Body of Christ. He then makes a very strong case, it seems to me, both theologically and practically, for using a word-for-word translation like the ESV instead one based on dynamic equivilence for most public preaching and teaching.

His theological line of reasoning is based on these main points:

1. The ESV upholds the truth that Scripture is the very words of God, not just the thoughts of God.
2. The ESV upholds that what is said must be known before what is meant can be determined.
3. The ESV upholds the truth that words carry meaning.
4. The ESV upholds the theological nomenclature of Scripture.
5. The ESV upholds the truth that while Scripture is meant for all people, it cannot be communicated in such a way that all people receive it.
5. The ESV upholds the truth that while Scripture is meant for all people, it cannot be communicated in such a way that all people receive it.

He states his pragmatic reasons as follows:

"1. Our pulpit is theologically oriented.
2. Our pulpit exists to teach people what they may otherwise not know.
3. Our pulpit is in the most educated and literate city in America.
3. Our pulpit is in the most educated and literate city in America.
5. Our pulpit is precedent-setting for the life and doctrine of our people.
6. Our pulpit is plugged in."

While I am certainly not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, I served as a career missionary before becoming Senior Pastor of Hillcrest Church here in Dallas, and have preached in three different languages, so the challenge of translation is not a new one to me. I know from personal, "hands-on" experience that sometimes the only possible way to intelligibly translate some statements is via dynamic equivilence, but I have found myself on my own personal journey back towards a preference for the word-for-word approach to translating the Scriptures.

When I first came to Dallas and set about preaching regularly again in English, in an effort to use the translation that I felt would be the easiest for everyone in my audience to understand, I began using the New Living Translation in the pulpit. Some of its readings are quite powerful, such as the way it renders the traditional "Blessed are the poor in spirit" in Matthew 5:3," God blesses those who are poor and realize their need for him, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs." It seems to me that the NLT has rendered the essence of that verse in such a way that anyone, even a first-time Bible reader, can instantly understand what it means.

Having said all of that, however, the more I preached out of the NLT and the more I came to appreciate the way it stated certain things, the more I became increasingly uneasy with the fact that it's dynamic equivilence approach seemingly causes it to stray quite far away from some important things contained in the original. That growing concern led me to go back to the NIV. Now, after preaching a couple of years from the NIV, I sense myself growing increasingly frustrated with some of the instances where its translators laid aside a word-for-word approach and adopted dynamic equivilence. I still use the NIV, but find I sometimes need to quote other translations in order to clear up some things that I think it could have stated more forthrightly, and I am not entirely satisfied with it.

Reading Driscoll's article has caused me to decide to take a serious look at the ESV in the near future. For me, the bottom line is that a good translation needs to be accessible (after all, the Bible is God's revelation...!) But, it also needs to be accurate. So, the saga continues... I'll keep you posted.