Critiquing Bell

Reading a recent edition of Christianity Today, I came across a quote from Eugene Peterson (The Message), who endorses Rob Bell's, Love Wins. According to Peterson, "There's very little Christ, very little Jesus, in these people who are fighting Rob Bell." What? I have read more than a dozen reviews of Bell's book, and quite frankly I've not seen an un-Christian attitude. All I've read are great concerns about Bell's belief about hell. None of the reviews I've read were unkind but they were 'critical.' [Since I've not read everyone's views on Bell's book I would never deny that there are criticisms that are less than Christ-like.]

Has critique now become un-Christ like? Then we would have to condemn Jesus Himself. Remember his scathing denunciation of Jewish religious leaders in Matthew 23? Let's see, He called them hypocrites, sons of hell, fools, blind guides, and like white washed tombs, "full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness" [v. 27].

What about standing up for biblical teaching? Is that un-Christ like? In Matthew 15 Jesus and His disciples were criticized by the religious leaders for not washing their hands when they eat bread [v. 2]. He turns the criticism around: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded saying, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"—Then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition [vv. 3-6]. Jesus obviously stood strong for the Ten Commandments, once again calling the religious leaders hypocrites for placing their traditions over the Word of God.

I have not read a review of Bell from reputable scholars/writers that has had the word hypocrite in it. The reviews were softer than the words Jesus used in Matthew 15 or 23. If Peterson wants to endorse a less than orthodox view of hell he has the right to do so. However, he should not cast those who don't as less than Christian.

UMC Problem

The United Methodists have a real problem as reported by the AP:

The Associated Press reports that the tide may be turning in the United Methodist Church on the issue of same-sex marriages. Hundreds of pastors from areas including Illinois, Minnesota, New York and New England have signed statements in recent weeks asserting their willingness to defy church rules that forbid officiating at such ceremonies. Many do so anyway, but have mostly kept silent on their conduct. However, church officials have taken several violators to task in church court. The Rev. Amy DeLong of Oscela in western Wisconsin faces a three-day trial on two charges: violating a church prohibition on the ordination of "self-avowed practicing homosexuals" and marrying a lesbian couple. She defends her actions by saying it is "incumbent on me not to perpetuate [the church's] unjust laws."

Hopefully the denomination will stay strong on this issue and deal with rogue pastors. Baptists beware! [Just a muse from a country preacher!!]

View of Preaching

This is a very fine column for preachers. You need to read it.

GOP Debate

I taped the GOP debate and watched this morning with my coffee. I'm just a regular guy (a simple country preacher) but here's my take on each candidate in bullet point form.

• Herman Cain—people liked him for a week or so. He is flamboyant and I like his fire. He has never been in government and while that may be what we need it won't be what we get.
  
• Rick Santorum—I liked him more than I thought I would. He had thoughtful responses and as I've read other's reviews he seems to have helped himself a bit.
  
• Ron Paul—I think this is his 15^th run for the White House. A Libertarian is a good critic of government (and we need that) but cannot run it. Government needs to stay out of a lot but not everything. We need a lot less regulation but not 'no' regulation.
  
• Newt Gingrich—really I think he did the best job answering the questions. I think the short answer format was good for him, but I doubt he can be nominated.
  
• Michelle Bachmann—I came in wanting to know more about her. I like her a lot, and while she didn't 'wow' me, she didn't turn me off either. Can she win the nomination? Stranger things have happened, but I really want to think of her as a VP candidate, depending on who wins.
  
• Tim Pawlenty—I really liked his economic plan when he introduced it, reading it in some detail. I could understand it and it makes sense. I watched his interview with Chris Wallace on Fox Sunday and liked how he critiqued Rominey care and coined the term "ObmaneyCare." But when he had a chance to hit Rominey on the issue he backed away. I was disappointed. I really like Pawlenty; we'll see.
  
• Mitt Rominey—the clear cut front runner and winner of the debate (winner in the sense that he did nothing to hurt himself and no one else tried to hurt him). I HATE that he will not just say his Mass health-care plan is a dyna-whoppin failure.
  

  
   

Can I just say I hated the format? I did. It was cool and for CNN I thought the thing was fair. But the cool wore off on me pretty quickly. Also sometimes it takes more than 30 seconds to answer a question. Of course, that's just the musing of a country preacher. John King did a credible job handling the debate. It is way too early to know who will wind up the nominee, and there's no way we can write off anybody at this point. There are still some wild cards like Palin and Perry. Everybody I see and read says Palin won't run; they've NEVER been wrong have they? As far as Perry is concerned, he is a social conservative with a record of creating jobs in Texas. I was not a big fan when I lived there. I thought he was a "W" wannabe, but he's grown on me. He will have money to run if he decides to do so; after all, he's a Texas governor.

 

Here's the answer to THE most important question of the evening: Elvis or Johnny Cash? Of course it is Elvis!

 

That is my humble but accurate opinion.

The Church Confronting Culture

How does the church confront culture? I think we can look at Acts 19, Paul's ministry in Ephesus and see how. Luke tells us about those who practiced magic turning away from that practice and how the idol souvenir business was threatened by people who turned to Christ, eventually causing a riot in the city.

What did Paul do to confront culture? Simply, he preached the Gospel, allowed God's Word to do its work, and then transformed lives transformed culture. As I studied the chapter recently I particularly liked what Darrel Bock had to say:

Transformation of individuals affects the culture at large, making it so nervous that it reacts to stop the progress. Luke does not speak of a campaign against others but of the presence of effective internal reform. What affects the commerce of idolatry in Ephesus is apparently not a program to stamp out magic but the change of lifestyle among believers, which entails separating themselves from such practices.

The church too often goes about this in the wrong way. God does expect His church to confront culture. It must do so, not through organized protests against sin, but through the organized preaching of the Gospel. When lives change through repentance and faith, the culture will change for the glory of God.

 

When Pastor's Bleed

I was recently given Gordon MacDonald's book, Who Stole My Church, by one of our members to read. It is a different church growth type book; it is fiction, albeit based on experience. It deals with the other side of the coin—how does the senior generation feel about all the changes in what can be termed the 'traditional' church? This entry is not about the book but about one section of it: Gordon's reaction to the departure of several people in the church after approval of a name change in a business meeting. I and any other pastor could relate to what he writes about those who leave after a dispute or for any other reason.

Are there any words that a pastor dreads more than 'leaving the church?' There must be, but I can't think of them right now. Leaving! I tend to associate the word with defeat or failure—mine . . . Some are going to ask, Why the fuss over fifteen people (the number of folks who left after that decision). The truth is, speaking as a pastor, you give your heart to the people of a congregation if this work is indeed a calling. You invest in them, think about them constantly, try to find ways to build Christ into their lives. You exalt in their spiritual development. You share their difficult moments. And you rejoice when good things happen to them.

He continues: If you really do give away your heart, then when people leave, they take a piece of it with them. I have known more than a few pastors who have given their hearts away piece by piece until one day there was nothing more to give. It's not unusual for some pastors to reach a point where they can no longer manage the disappointments of people leaving or just hanging around and making trouble. Something dies within them, and they either quit or begin to treat their work as a regular job in which a person counts the days until retirement. (I would add that when this happens a pastor often becomes very cynical instead of hopeful and full of faith.)

To be honest, sometimes there are people who leave the church and you feel relieved. They demand a disproportionate amount of attention, or they generate a chronic kind of complaining. You finally come to the conclusion that this is not a happy experience for them or for you. They have to be released to find a place where they'll find a better fit.

But to be fair, the fifteen or so who left us after we changed our name were very good people. And that's why I took every one of their 'leavings' personally. [Who Stole My Church, 162-163].

MacDonald has eloquently shared what makes pastors bleed. It's not fighting the Devil; we know God will give us victory. It's not standing for truth; we see that as our calling. It is the leaving of the saints. Every time it happens, no matter whom or what the reason, it hurts and we bleed.

After all, contrary to popular opinion, pastors are just people too.

 

Friends and Tough Times

The Anthony Weiner situation has been all over the news and there's no use commenting on the specifics. However, one story on the Fox news website yesterday caught my eye. The headline was, "Senate Leader Throws Weiner Under the Bus." Senator Harry Reid said he would not help Weiner, and if the Congressman asked him for advice he would have none to give--"Call somebody else." I don't know whether or not Harry Reid has any kind of relationship with the Congressman at all, but one thing I know--in tough times you really find out who your friends are and who they are not.

Fox reported: "Rep. Weiner has received very little public support since divulging on Monday that he had sent lewd pictures to and engaged in sexually-explicit messaging with at least six women, though his mentor and former boss, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, is standing by his side.

'I am deeply pained and saddened by today's news. By fully explaining himself, apologizing to all he hurt and taking full responsibility for his wrongful actions, Anthony did the right thing. He remains a talented and committed public servant, and I pray he and his family can get through these difficult times,' Schumer said in a statement released by his office Monday night."

Senator Schumer is obviously a real friend. A real friend will feel the pain, be in the ditch with you, and offer real help. A real friend won't throw you to the wolves. Real friends are there even when you really mess things up. In fact, that's when they are needed the most and are appreciated the most. You do find out who your friends are when the dark moments of life hit. Unfortunately you find out some you thought were friends will make the ditch deeper for you.

Who would be with you if you found yourself in the ditch? They are the true friends; and you probably don't have many of them. That's ok. Even one friend who will stand with you in the darkest times is a blessing from God.

"A friend loves at all times and a brother is born in adversity" [Prov 17:17].

The New NIV

Here we go again. The 2011 NIV is being criticized for its inclusive language. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood [CBMW] is taking the translation committee to task for inaccurate gender language. More than 2700 of the problems critics identified in the controversial TNIV remain in the NIV 2011, and because of those problems the CBMW cannot recommend the revised translation.

As Baptist Press reports correctly, the debate centers on translation philosophy: Is it permissible to make the English translation inclusive when the intent and application of the verse are also inclusive? My answer to that question would be yes. A translation, especially a dynamic equivalent, can certainly do that. Is it wrong to ensure communication? I would say no as long as there is no violence to the intent of the Greek or Hebrew text. Do people speak in gender inclusive ways today? Yes. I even preach that way and have for years. I seldom use the masculine pronoun exclusively and have urged my students to do the same thing. We must communicate. We can without destroying the integrity of God's message. Overall then I believe the criticisms of CBMW are unwarranted. I understand their concerns of course and share in their desire to ensure biblical family values, but making the English text more gender inclusive is helpful and maybe even necessary.

There are two verses in Paul's writings that are especially criticized by CBMW. The first is 1 Timothy 2:12. The 2011 NIV renders the verse, "I do not permit a woman to teach or assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." The criticism is over 'assume authority' over against 'have authority,' found in the 1984 version. CBMW charges that the change will allow those who embrace women pastors and elders to argue that women are not assuming authority but have been given it by others. To be honest those who claim that women can serve as pastors and/or elders use the same argument with 'have authority.' One will not be convinced either way using the new translation. Doesn't the word 'assume' imply initiation of some kind? BDAG translates the word as 'to assume a stance of independent authority.' That definition seems to imply initiation. I'm not sure that the 2011 NIV needed to change the translation of v. 12 [I don't think I would have], but neither do I think the translation committee has violated the intent of Paul's writing.

Then there's Romans 16:7. This is the famous (or infamous) Junia verse. The 2011 NIV reads: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." The 1984 NIV translated Junia as Junias, a male name and textually very doubtful. The controversy here concerns a preposition translated 'among,' which gives the impression that Junia was an apostle. Other versions, such as the ESV would translate the preposition as, 'well known to the apostles,' eliminating the possibility of a female apostle. The difficulty with the ESV and translations like it (including HCSB) is while that use of the preposition is possible it is not the ordinary use of it and unlikely. The most probable translation is that of the 2011 NIV. For those who do not wish to believe that a woman could be an apostle, it is common knowledge that the word in Greek more generally means 'messenger.' Perhaps Paul had in mind the more common and not the technical use of the term. We simply do not know, but I would rather grapple with the use of apostolos in this verse than do some translation gymnastics with the preposition. Interpretations like the ESV or HCSB seem to me to be more a product of one's ecclesiological presuppositions rather than a good translation of the Greek text.

Our presuppositions are hard to get out of the way when we interpret the biblical text. For example, the fact that I'm a Southern Baptist who affirms our denomination's doctrinal statement will lead me to see verses like 1 Timothy 2:12 and Romans 16:7 in a certain way. Good hermeneutics, however, call for as objective look at the text as possible. We must allow the texts to say what they say. We can grapple with and even argue about the meanings. But let's translate them correctly. In the two cases above, the 2011 NIV does a decent job. I would give it a "C+" on 1 Timothy 2:12 but an "A" on Romans 16:7.

Let's get back to the overall philosophical problem here. How do we translate God's Word? Language usages change. We all know that, and that's why the KJV is a problem for so many people. No one I preach to on Sunday uses "thee" or "thou." Translations must change as well. Good translations will communicate the unchanging Word of God so it can be understood by as many people as possible. You may not agree with gender inclusive language, but the fact remains that it is the way people communicate in 2011. Shouldn't a Bible translation show that as long as there is no violence done to the Greek or Hebrew texts? Can that be done? The answer to both questions is yes. More gender inclusive language does not have to undermine the authority of Scripture. I think that CBMW is reaching out too far in its overall criticism of the 2011 NIV.