Both Saint and Cynic

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Junia? Pt. 6

2012-01-30T18:27:00.000-08:00

SYLLOGISMS AND CONCLUSIONS

In the early days of Christianity, when the Church was more a movement than an institution, there was an outstanding female apostle named Junia. The Apostle Paul sent her greetings in Romans 16:7. Since the time of Martin Luther, Bible translators have tried to translate her out of existence. In earlier posts in this series, I’ve looked at three strategies they have used. The reasoning behind those strategies can be expressed as syllogisms.

A syllogism is a form of logical proof made up of three statements. The first two statements are called premises. The third statement, the conclusion is derived from the premises. If the premises are true, and the syllogism is constructed correctly, the conclusion will also be true. But, as I’ve said before, the most rigorous logic will yield false conclusions if it proceeds from faulty assumptions.

An example of a syllogism might be:

A. All Cretans are liars.
B. Bruce is a Cretan. Therefore,
C. Bruce is a liar.

If the premises, A and B, are true then the conclusion, C, is also true.

The first attempt to translate the female apostle away expressed as a syllogism would be:

A. A woman cannot be an apostle.
B. Junia is an apostle. Therefore,
C. Junia cannot be a woman.

On the basis of reasoning like this, the feminine name “Junia” was translated as a masculine name, “Junias.” The problem with this solution is that the name “Junia” is well-attested in ancient times, and the name “Junias” is did not exist. So the first solution to the Junia problem has largely been abandoned in favor of a second solution which can be expressed as follows:

A. A woman cannot be an apostle.
B. Junia is a woman. Therefore,
C. Junia cannot be an apostle.

At least three recent English versions of the Bible have adopted this solution, claiming that Junia was not “prominent among the apostles” but only “well-known to the apostles.” This translation, however, requires an unnatural reading of the Greek, one that was never, to my knowledge, used until the twentieth century. So, the second solution is unconvincing and brings us to the third.

A. A woman cannot be an apostle.
B. Junia, a woman, is called an “apostle.” Therefore,
C. “Apostle” cannot mean “apostle.”

So a footnote in the Holman Christian Standard Bible suggests that Junia was not an apostle but a mere “messenger.” The Greek word ἀπόστολος (apostolos) is translated as "messenger" in two other verses (2 Cor 8:23, Php 2:25). Context argues against this understanding of ἀπόστολος in Romans 16:7. If Junia is only a messenger, whose messenger is she?

I have stated these three solutions to the Junia problem as syllogisms to show that they all rest upon the same assumption, namely that a woman cannot be an apostle. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) Junia herself puts the lie to that assumption. The premise is false and any conclusion based on it will likewise be false. Junia just can’t be translated out of existence, and I think that honesty requires Christians of every ilk to recognize that.

Churches that would deny women leadership roles can still do so, of course. They can argue that Junia may well have been an apostle but the age of apostles is past. They can argue that it has been the tradition of the Church for many centuries to reserve positions of authority for men. They can argue on the basis of other Scriptures--Scriptures that were written when the Church was on its way to becoming an institution--that women should be silent and submissive. (Of course this last argument will be difficult for those Christians who teach that the Bible speaks with a single voice.)

What they cannot do, at least not convincingly, is deny that when Christianity was young there was a woman named Junia whom the apostle Paul said was “prominent among the apostles.”

I am proud to be a part of the stream of Christianity that recognizes that both women and men can be gifted for ministry. “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28

The illustration for this post is a detail from a mosaic at the Basilica of St. Appolonaire in Classe near Ravenna, Italy. I found the picture at this website.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Junia? Pt. 5

2012-01-26T17:53:00.000-08:00

THE FEMALE APOSTLE LOST AND FOUND INTRANSLATION

My study of Romans 16:7 has led me tothe conclusion that Paul referred to a woman, Junia, as "prominentamong the apostles." I have also concluded that "apostle"here means a person in a position of authority. Junia has often beentranslated out of existence, either by making her name masculine"Junias" or by making her "well-known" to theapostles. In the chart below, I look at Romans 16:7 in 24 Englishversions of the Bible. A few of the versions listed are actuallysignificant revisions of earlier versions (e.g. NASB 1e and NASB 2e=New American Standard Bible 1st and 2nd editions).

I have tried to restrict myself totranslations that were produced by committee.

The Versions are listed by year ofpublication. Multiple versions published in the same year arealphabetized. "X" indicates the reading of the main text;"f" indicates a variant reading included in a footnote. So,for example, the New American Standard Bible, 2nd edition uses themasculine name "Junias" in its text and relegates thefeminine name Junia to a footnote. NASB 2e further calls "Junias"a "prominent apostle" and takes no notice of the varianttranslation "well-known to the apostles."

A few ancient Greek texts have avariant reading that replaces the name "Junia" with"Julia." This is not a significant, but is footnoted insome translations and is so noted in the last column of my chart.

I think that the chart showsgraphically that the masculine name "Junias" was not usedin English translations before the late 19th century. It was widelyused through much of the 20th century but has now largely beenabandoned. Three recent doctrinally biased English versions haveadopted the suspect reading "well-known to the apostles."The chart shows that this is a new translational strategy.

Following the chart is a key to theabbreviations used for the various versions, including my own remarksabout each one.

Click the chart to enlarge it.

* * *

ANNOTATED KEY TO VERSIONS

GENEVA BIBLE: Historicallysignificant as the first mass-produced English language Bibleavailable to the general public. The Geneva Bible's marginal notesreflect Calvinist theology and have a decidedly anti-monarchical andanti-ecclesiastical bent.

KJV: Commissioned by King JamesI on his ascension to the throne of England, the Authorized or KingJames Version was intended to combat the popularity of the GenevaBible. Slow to catch on, the KJV came to rule as the EnglishBible for about 300 years. Its influence can hardly be overestimated.KJV Onlyists make extravagant claims for this translation. Changes inEnglish usage and discoveries of many ancient biblical manuscriptshave rendered the KJV nearly obsolete.

ASV: The NewTestament of the American Standard Version was based onWestcott and Hort's critical edition of the Greek New Testament. TheASV retained the archaic language of the KJV. Never widely popular,the ASV has largely lapsed into disuse. A curious feature of the ASVis its use, in the Old Testament, of “Jehovah” to render the nameof God.

RSV:A bestseller when firstpublished, and the center of considerable controversy, the RevisedStandard Version wasbased on the best critical Greek and Hebrew texts available. Thisacademic translation was made by an interfaith team of scholars thatincluded Jews and Christians. The RSV rendered the Scriptures inmodern English but retained archaic forms (“thee,” “thou,”“hast,” etc.) in poetic passages. The RSV was criticized by somefor (rightly) rendering the Hebrew 'almahas “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 and (again rightly) omittinginterpolated verses (like Acts 8:37) that had appeared in earliertranslations. The RSV is the version that I heard read in church as achild and I have a special affection for it.

NEB: The NewEnglish Bible, a British translation into thoroughly modernEnglish, was printed in single-column format with verse numbersrelegated to the margins. It looked, and in some measure read, like amodern novel. The NEB has now largely been replaced by the RevisedEnglish Bible (REB).

GNT: Formerlyknown as the Today's English Version (TEV), the American BibleSociety's Good News Translation was made according to theprinciple of “dynamic equivalence.” Idiomatic and highlyreadable, the GNT has now grown a bit long in the tooth.

NASB 1e (alsosecond edition): The New American Standard Bible wastranslated according to a strict principle of “formal equivalence”which often makes its English renderings forced and unnatural. Eachverse is printed beginning on a new line, meaning that there are noparagraphs in the NASB. The second edition represents a considerablerevision of the first. I rarely consult this version.

NIV(also NIrV,TNIVand NIV 11):The all-time bestselling English translation of the Bible, the NewInternational Version wasin some ways, an Evangelical response to the popularity of the RSV.The NIV has been criticized for its doctrinal bias (e.g. it renders'almah as “virgin”in Isaiah 7:14). For many people raised in Evangelical churches, theNIV is the Bible. Thetranslation style steers a middle course between dynamic and formalequivalence. The NIrV (NewInternational Readers' Version)is a closely related translation into simplified English. The Today'sNew International Versionadopted more inclusive language and was the focus of sometimesvituperative controversy. The original NIV and the TNIV have now beenreplaced with a 2011 revised New International Version (NIV 11).Because of its inclusive language and more academic bias, the NIV 11has been rejected in favor of other translations by some of the oldNIV's supporters.

NKJV: TheNew King James Version is something of an oddity, a freshrendering of the texts behind the KJV into more modern English. Thisis the Bible distributed by the Gideon Society. A formally equivalenttranslation, I find the NKJV useful for checking my own, roughtranslations from the Greek.

NRSV: TheNew Revised Standard Bible is my go-to Bible and the one Iread in worship every Sunday. A revision of the old RSV, the NRSVuses more inclusive language. It is frequently quoted in scholarlypublications. Though no translation is perfect, the NRSV is as goodas any and better than most. It is, however, written at a fairly highreading level.

NCV: Writtenat about a third grade level, and originally intended as a children'sBible, the New Century Version is a very readable translation.

CEV: TheContemporary English Version, another publication of theAmerican Bible Society, is rendered in simplified English and avoidsusing theological terms. The CEV is an easy read.

GW: TheGod's Word translation was largely the work of Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod scholars, though it is not officially a publication ofthat church body. (The LCMS keys its publications to the ESV, seebelow). Rendered according to a dubious translation philosophy, GWnever seems to have achieved much popularity.

NASB 2e: SeeNASB 1e above.

NLT1e (also Second edition):Based on the style of Ken Taylor's popular Living Bible paraphrase,the New Living Translationis a pleasure to read. Highly idiomatic, the translation sometimesshows doctrinal bias (e.g. at Isaiah 7:14 'almahis rendered “virgin” though “young woman” is a footnoted).The second edition of the NLT (NLT 2e) was a substantial revision.

NIrV: See NIVabove.

WEB: Here'sa curiosity. A public domain translation based on the old ASV. Itstextual basis for the New Testament is the Byzantine Majority text,closer to the KJV's underlying text than the ASV's Westcott and HortGreek text. The World English Bible is a work in progressthough the New Testament is said to be complete. Where the ASVtranslated the name of God as “Jehovah” in the Hebrew Scriptures,the WEB uses the more correct “Yahweh.” Personally I prefer theconvention of rendering God's name with Lord printed in small caps.

ESV: Less atranslation and more a doctrinally biased “correction” of the oldRSV, the English Standard Version was greeted with undeservedenthusiasm by some sectors of Christianity. The ESV's translationteam was made up predominantly of Calvinists and complimentarians. Ithink that it was intended, at least partly, to give Evangelicals aviable alternative to the NIV. As you may have inferred, I do notlike the ESV. Still, because it is stylistically so close to the RSVthat I was weaned on, I can't help but enjoy reading it.

HCSB:TheHolman Christian Standard Bible is published by the SouthernBaptist Convention's Holman Bible Publishers. When the HCSB was firstpublished, SBC president Al Mohler said, “This is an importantthing for Southern Baptists to do, if for no other reason than thatwe will have a major translation that we can control.” The HCSBsteers a middle course between dynamic and formal equivalence. Amongthe recent doctrinally biased translations that make Junia“noteworthy in the eyes of the apostles” the HCSB is alone infootnoting the (correct) alternative “outstanding among theapostles.” I quote here from the online text of the HCSB. The textin my copy of the Apologetics Study Bible varies.

NLT 2e: SeeNLT 1e above.

NET: The NewEnglish Translation has a liberal copyright policy. It is largelya product of the Dallas Theological Seminary and reflects thatinstitution's “conservative” theology, especially in itsthousands of translators' notes.

CEB:Published in the 400th anniversary year of the KJV, the CommonEnglish Bible reads at the same grade level as the USA Todaynewspaper. I have enjoyed reading this “academically rigorous”translation. Some of its idiosyncratic translational choices areenlightening (e.g. “the Human One” for “Son of Man”). A feware just strange (“DNA” for "seed" at 1 John 3:9). Overall,this is a worthwhile translation.

NIV11: See NIV above.

Readers: I would appreciate your help and feedback. If you have any corrections or additions for the chart above, please make them in comments to this post. I would particularly like to know how Romans 16:7 is translated in some versions I don't have access to, in particular the Revised English Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, and the New Jerusalem Bible. Thanks!

Last Chance...

2012-01-25T18:50:00.000-08:00

...FOR A FREE CEB BIBLE

First reply to this post gets it. Give me your name and address so that I can forward them to the publisher. I promise not to publish your personal information.

I'm grateful to the publishers of the Common English Bible for the opportunity to participate in this Blog Tour. I know that I have helped to promote their product, but, frankly, it has been reciprocal. They have also promoted my little blog and have not interfered, in any way, with what I have written here. I have enjoyed giving away Bibles and, I have to say I like the CEB overall. It is as good as most English versions of the Bible, and better than many.

I've been working on Part 5 in my series on Junia. It looks like it will be a long one dealing with how Junia has fared in various English translations. Watch for it soon.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Junia? Pt. 4

2012-01-18T11:38:00.000-08:00

WHENIS AN APOSTLE NOT AN APOSTLE?

Makinga man of Junia didn't work. Claims that she was not “prominentamong the apostles” but only “well known to the apostles” areunconvincing. There remains a third possible solution to the problemthat is Junia. A footnote to Romans 16:7 in the Holman ChristianStandard Bible (HCSB) reads:

“Theapostles” is not always a technical term referring to the 12; cp. 2Co 8:23; Php 2:25 where this word is translated as “messenger.”

Etymologicallythe word “apostle” means “one who is sent.” Close synonymsfor “apostle” include “ambassador,” “representative,”“messenger,” and “delegate.” The HCSB footnote is right insaying that “apostle” has a technical meaning. In this sense itrefers to certain important leaders in early Christianity—those whowere sent by Christ—though not only “the 12.”

Luke6:12-16, and parallel passages, tell how Jesus designated twelve ofhis disciples as “apostles.”

Atdaybreak, [Jesus] called together his disciples. He chose twelve ofthem whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter; his brotherAndrew; James; John; Philip; Bartholomew; Matthew; Thomas; James theson of Alphaeus; Simon, who was called a zealot; Judas the son ofJames; and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. (Luke 6: 12-16 CEB)

Inthe first chapter of Acts, after the death of Judas, the elevenremaining apostles seek a replacement to fill out their number. Petersays:

“Therefore,we must select one of those who have accompanied us during the wholetime the Lord Jesus lived among us, beginning from the baptism ofJohn until the day when Jesus was taken from us. This person mustbecome along with us a witness to his resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22CEB)

Paulrefers to himself as an apostle (see Romans 1:1 among other places)and apparently means this in the technical sense as he defends hisright to the title in 1 Corinthians 9 and Galatians 1-2. Perhaps Paulneeded to defend himself because he was not one of the twelve and hadnot “accompanied [them] during the whole time the Lord Jesus livedamong [them].”

TheHCSB footnote is right, however, that there is a non-technical use ofthe word “apostle.” It can refer to a messenger or delegate whois not a leader of the church, a representative of someone other thanthe Christ. A look at the two passages referenced in that footnote isinstructive. First, from Philippians:

Ithink it is also necessary to send Epaphroditus to you. He is mybrother, coworker, and fellow soldier; and he is your representative[“apostle” in Greek] who serves my needs. (Philippians 2:25 CEB)

ThisEpaphroditus was apparently sent from Philippi to assist Paul in someway. Now Paul is sending him back. I think that Paul is being playfulwhen he calls Epaphroditus “your apostle.” He means somethinglike “Just as I am Christ's apostle to you, Epaphroditus has beenyour apostle to me.” Clearly, though, Paul does not mean thatEpaphroditus is an apostle in the technical sense. Now, the passagefrom 2 Corinthians:

Ifthere is any question about Titus, he is my partner and coworkeramong you. If there is any question about our brothers, they are thechurches’ apostles and an honor to Christ. (2 Corinthians 8:23CEB).

HerePaul is presenting the credentials of a group of people whom he issending to Corinth to pick up an offering which they will then taketo the church in Jerusalem. The “brothers” are evidently notapostles in the technical sense, but representatives of the churches,that is, delegates of the congregations that sent them.

Doesthis mean that Junia and her pal Andronicus might be apostles in thenon-technical sense, mere “messengers” or “delegates” likeEpaphroditus and “the brothers?”

Idon't think so.

Inthe two instances where Paul uses the word “apostle” in thenon-technical sense, he supplies a possessive pronoun. He tells uswhose apostles these are. Epaphroditus is “your [i.e. thePhilippians'] apostle.” The “brothers” are “the churches'apostles.” It is clear that they are not “Christ's apostles.”They are not apostles in the technical sense.

WhenPaul refers to himself, or other church leaders, as apostles in thetechnical sense he may use a possessive pronoun (cf. at 1 Corinthians1:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:7) or, more often, not (1 Corinthians 9:1 etal.). It seems that apostles are assumed to be Christ's apostlesunless otherwise specified.

InRomans 16:7 Paul refers to Andronicus and Junia as “prominent amongthe apostles” without a possessive pronoun. If Junia is notChrist's apostle, then whose apostle is she?

The illustration accompanying this post is Junia from Luba Lukova's Biblical Women portfolio. I found it here.

Bible Giveaway

2012-01-15T18:20:00.000-08:00

The end of the Common English Bible Blog Tour is coming near. I only have a couple more of these to give away.

The first person to reply to this thread gets a free paperback copy of the CEB.

Leave your name and mailing address. I promise that I will not publish your personal information.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Junia? Pt. 3

2012-01-13T17:34:00.000-08:00

DEMOTE HER

Part one of this series can be found here. And part two here.

I have a friend who claims that there are more than 500 English translations of the Bible. I sincerely believe that every Bible translator intends to render the Scriptures as clearly and accurately as possible. I include in this assessment the translations that are based on poor textual evidence (e.g. the New King James Version). Likewise the weird translations that “restore” Hebrew names to the Greek New Testament and even the most egregiously denominational “translations” (like the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation). I’m not being charitable in my assessment of translators’ motives. It’s just that, apart from outright fraud, I really can’t imagine why anyone would create a Bible translation that did not, in their own estimation, accurately and clearly render the meaning of the original.

Having said that, I want to point out that every translation reflects the biases of its translators. The venerable King James Version was biased toward ecclesiastical and monarchical language. It was produced in part to counter the anti-monarchical and anti-ecclesiastical biases of the popular Geneva Bible.

Among modern translations, some choose to use inclusive language, others are gender specific. Some are translated using dynamic equivalence, others are formally equivalent. These are intentional choices made by the translators.

I would suggest that some Bible translations have a doctrinal bias and others have an academic bias. All other considerations aside, I prefer a Bible that is academically rigorous to one that is doctrinally “correct.” This is because I believe that doctrine should be derived from Scripture, not translated into it.

Among other things, an academic translation will render the Hebrew ’almah as “young woman” at Isaiah 7:10 and a doctrinal translation will say “virgin.”

For the best part of the twentieth century even the most academically biased translations rendered the name of an apostle in Romans 16:7 with the masculine “Junias.” This is because they based their translations on critical editions of the Greek New Testament. The latest critical editions of the Greek Testament have, for reasons I’ve discussed before, restored the feminine name “Junia” to this verse.

Why did the earlier editions say “Junias?” I can only speculate, but I suspect the scholars who produced those editions honestly believed a woman could not be an apostle. After all, the Church, for most of its history, has denied women roles of leadership. Some Christians still do.

Today it is more and more recognized that the Apostle Paul’s churches practiced a surprising gender equality. Only later in the New Testament period, when Christianity became less a movement and more an establishment, were women excluded from leadership roles. An interesting, popular level book that covers some of this information is Crossan and Borg’s First Paul. I recommend it with some small reservations. Read it critically.

Since it is now more difficult to deny that Junia was a woman, recent doctrinally biased translations have resorted to a different strategy to deal with the problem of a female apostle. They’ve demoted her. They say that Andronicus and Junia were not “prominent apostles” but “well-known to the apostles.”

Some of the recent versions that adopt this translation are the English Standard Version, the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the New English Translation.

The arguments for this translation involve technical points of Greek grammar. My own grasp of Koine Greek is good enough to follow the discussion, but not to contribute to it. (If you are interested in the techinical matters, Suzanne McCarthy has done an excellent job of dealing with them at the BLT blog). Still, I find the argument that Junia was only “well-known to the apostles” unconvincing for at least three reasons:

First, the argument is circular. Like the argument that Junia was not a woman, this strategy is based on the unproven assumption that a woman could not be an apostle.

Second, the translation “well-known to the apostles” strains the Greek. The normal way to read the Greek is that Andronicus and Junia were “prominent among the apostles.” As far as I can ascertain, the earliest English translation to adopt this strategy was the English Standard Version in 2001. Before that, no one tried to claim that Andronicus and Junia were “well-known to the apostles.”

Third, arguments that Junia was not an apostle strike me as disingenuous. If the names in Romans 16:7 were both unambiguously masculine, say “Andronicus and George,” no one...absolutely no one...would try to suggest that George was only “well-known to the apostles.”

To sum up, the argument that Junia was not a woman has largely been abandoned. Academically biased translations of the Bible say that Junia was “prominent among the apostles.” Doctrinally biased versions say that she was only “well-known to the apostles,” an unconvincing translation that strains the Greek.

There remains a third solution to the problem of Junia. Stay tuned.

I found the picture of St. Nina accompanying one of Suzanne McCarthy's excellent posts at the BLT blog. I'm participating in the Common English Bible Blog Tour. Come back next week for a chance to get a free copy of the Common English Bible, a translation that gives Junia the respect she deserves.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Junia? Pt. 2

2012-01-09T17:30:00.000-08:00

JUNIA GETS A SEX CHANGE

To read Part 1 of this series, click here.

In Romans 16:7, St. Paul gives a shoutout to the apostles Andronicus and Junia, two persons who areotherwise unknown. Andronicus is a man’s name. Junia is a fairlycommon Latin woman’s name. This being the letter to the Romans, theappearance of a Latin name is not terribly troubling. The appearanceof a female apostle on the other hand....

Christians who do not allow womenpositions of leadership in their churches have used at least threestrategies to deal with the problem of a female apostle. The first issimply to deny that Junia is a woman.

Personally, I favor the ordination ofwomen. I am a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Americawhich allows both women and men to serve in every office in itscongregational, synodical and churchwide expressions. My concern hereis not to defend my position or the ELCA’s but rather to raise aquestion of honesty in biblical translation.

Do we read our doctrine out of Scripture, or do we allow our doctrine to shape the translation ofScripture?

Martin Luther was not a fan of women’sordination. The reformer wanted to restore the catholic church towhat he thought was a pristine, biblical theology. In his reforms,Luther did not try to do away with all tradition, only thosetraditions that stood in the way of the clear proclamation of theGospel. The catholic church in Luther’s time had no tradition ofordaining women, so Luther’s churches did not ordain women.Luther’s commitment to Christian freedom made him admit that, intheory, under dire circumstances, women might serve as pastors. Hedid not, however, think that feminine voices were suited topreaching. That’s about as enlightened as Martin Luther got on thesubject.

When Luther translated the NewTestament into German, he added a masculine article to Junia’s nameand referred to Junia and Andronicus as “men of note among theapostles.” Effectively, he gave Junia a sex change. Or at least agrammatical gender change.

Luther was not the first person to doso. That distinction would belong to a 13th century commentator namedAegidius of Rome. Let that sink in. It was not until the 13th centurythat Junia was called a man. Until that time every translator andcommentator agreed that Junia was a woman.

It really isn’t that hard to changeJunia’s gender. It’s as easy as changing an accent mark in theGreek text. Accent the name one way and it is the feminine Junia.Accent it another way and it becomes the masculine Junias. Sinceaccent marks were not used in Greek manuscripts until the 10thcentury, how can we know which form the name should take? To theimpressive evidence of ancient translators and commentators thatJunia was a woman, we can add the fact that the masculine name Juniasis unknown from ancient documents.

Junia was a common name. The nameJunias didn’t exist.

From the time of Tyndale until thelatter half of the 19th century, every English translation of theNew Testament used the feminine name Junia in Romans 16:7. Then,probably because they did not believe that a woman could be anapostle, translators began using the masculine name Junias. In 1927,Nestle's critical edition of the Greek New Testament accented Junia'sname as if it were masculine, relegating the feminine form to afootnote. Later editions dropped the footnote. For most of thetwentieth century English translations, including the RevisedStandard Version and the 1978 New International Version, said“Junias.”

The most recent critical editions ofthe Greek New Testament have restored the feminine name Junia toRomans 16:7 and newer English translations, such as the New RevisedStandard Version and the 2011 revision of the New InternationalVersion have followed suit. Even those translations made by“conservative” (read “masculinist”) translation committees,such as the Holman Christian Standard Bible, the New EnglishTranslation, and the English Standard Version, translate Junia's namein its feminine form. (These three versions use a different strategyto solve the problem of Junia. Watch for my next post).

In short, the evidence that Junia wasactually a woman is overwhelming.

Arguments that she was not a woman arebased in circular reasoning: “Our doctrine says that women cannotbe apostles. Junia was an apostle. Therefore Junia was not a woman.”The premise that women cannot be apostles is unproven, and, in fact,Junia herself is a counter-example. Giving her a sex change, or even agrammatical gender change, is unwarranted. It's a matter of reading doctrine into translation.

Some resources: Eldon Epp has written ashort but thorough scholarly book titled Junia, the First WomanApostle. Scot McKnight has recently published a highly accessiblee-book titled Junia Is Not Alone. Suzanne McCarthy has an impressiveseries of blog posts about Junia on the BLT blog. I have used all of these sources in preparing this series of blog posts.

I got the picture of St. Junia the Apostle, here.

Since I am participating in the Common English Bible blog tour, I should point out that the CEB rendersRomans 16:7 correctly: “Say hello to Andronicus and Junia, myrelatives and my fellow prisoners. They are prominent among theapostles, and they were in Christ before me.” This has been a longpost, so if you have read this far and are the first person toreply to this post, you can be the winner of this week's CEBgiveaway!

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Junia? Pt. 1

2012-01-04T15:17:00.000-08:00

THE PROBLEM

I’ve said before that the Apostle Paul’s letters are high context documents. That is, they assume a great deal of shared knowledge between the writer and his intended audience. Some of that knowledge is, after a span of nearly two millennia, lost to us. For example, in the sixteenth chapter of his letter to the Romans, Paul wraps things up in his customary way with a series of personal greetings to various individuals. For most of those individuals, the little that we know of them is to be found in Romans 16. This is the case with Andronicus and Junia.

Say hello to Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners. They are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me. (Romans 16:7 CEB)

Andronicus is a male name and Junia is a female name. Some commentators speculate that Andronicus and Junia were a married couple, but this is purely a conjecture.

When Paul calls Andronicus and Junia his relatives, he may mean that they are Jewish, like himself. Some translations (e.g. the New Living Translation and the New International Version) reflect this interpretation. It is an interpretation nonetheless. Andronicus is a Greek name, but that doesn’t mean much. Some Jews had Greek names.

Paul seems to suggest that he, Junia and Andronicus were in prison, possibly together. The details of their imprisonment are unknown and, to be honest, I wonder if Paul wasn’t using the term “fellow prisoners” in some metaphorical sense.

Paul says that Andronicus and Junia were “in Christ before” he was. It is probably safe to assume this means that they had adopted the Christian faith before Paul did. Probably.

That is all that we can know about Andronicus and Junia. That, and the fact that Paul calls them “apostles.” Therein lies the problem.

If you don’t see the problem, God bless you!

Some Christians do not allow women roles of leadership in their churches. This can range from reserving ordination for men alone, to denying that women can even read theScriptures aloud in the assembly. For such Christians, the idea that Junia, a woman, could be an apostle, is problematic.

Looking at the Bible as objectively as possible, I think that there are passages in both testaments that affirm women in leadership roles, and passages, especially in the New Testament, that express the equality of men and women in Christ. There are also passages that say women should be silent and submissive to men (1 Tim. 2:12). In other words, the biblical witness is mixed. Junia becomes a problem for those Christians who insist that the Bible is one inerrant thing.

In my next few posts, I intend to discuss some of the flawed solutions that have been applied to the problem that is Junia.

The icon of Junia, along with Andronicus and Athanasius, came from wiki. For the record, I believe that qualified women and men should be allowed to serve in any position of leadership in the Church. That's the way it is in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Get Yer Bible Here!

2011-12-27T18:47:00.000-08:00

It is time once more for my weekly Bible giveaway. As part of the Common English Bible Blog Tour, I can award one happy reader of this blog a free paperback copy of the CEB. If you want it, just comment on this post. Give me your name and mailing address, so that I can forward them to the publisher.

I promise that I will not publish your personal information.

First reply to this post gets it. There will be another giveaway next week.

Snuggly Swaddled

2011-12-23T16:37:00.000-08:00

Babies like to be swaddled. Who knew?

Okay, maybe you knew, but I didn’t. I don’t havechildren. I have never been responsible for the care of a newborn. Swaddling,to me, is an academic subject.

Apparently wrapping babies up snugly (snuggly?) in cloths soothesthem. It warms them. Maybe it reminds them of the womb. Swaddling, with duecaution of course, seems to be a good thing.

Mary knew.

She gave birth to her firstborn child, a son, wrapped himsnugly, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in theguestroom. (Luke 2:7 CEB)

The knowledge of swaddling must have been passed down frommother to daughter, generation to generation, until it reached Mary ofNazareth. Despite the trying circumstances under which she gave birth to Jesus,Mary cared for him as best she could, swaddling him, comforting him, nourishinghim, protecting him, loving him, and laying him down in a manger to sleep.

Jesus came into the world like every one of us: naked,helpless, needful of food, clothing, shelter, and love which Mary. and Josephtoo I’m sure, provided.

The great scandal of the Christian faith is our proclamationthat, in this tiny, dependent infant resting in a feed box, God has come to bewith his people. And again, God is revealed to us in the helpless man,stripped, beaten, dying, affixed to a cross.

This is where humanity and deity, history and eternity,heaven and earth meet.

Not in great shows of power, not with muscle flexingdemonstrations of might, but in a swaddled newborn our God has come to us.

Christmas blessings to you, dear reader.

Look At My Bible

2011-12-19T17:48:00.001-08:00

NOW LOOK AT YOURS

For my participation in the Common English Bible Blog Tour I was given a copy of the CEB. I chose an edition that included the Apocrypha. Although the deuterocanonical books are not a part of my church's canon, I find them valuable and instructive to read. I have read the entire CEB New Testament and am now working my way though the Apocrypha. I'm in the middle of Sirach (you may call it Ecclesiasticus if you wish) at the moment.

Except for that business about DNA in 1 John 3:9, I very much like the CEB. (The CEB's translation of Wisdom of Solomon renders the same Greek word (σπέρμα "sperma") as "genetic character." This is better but still anachronistic.) The CEB is fresh, readable, and for the most part, clear.

The copy of the CEB that I was given is bound in black DecoTone (an imitation leather that I suspect is really pebble-grained vinyl. In former times it might have been called "leatherette." In other applications it might be called "pleather.") The thin pages are edged with silver. There is a sewn-in ribbon marker. Everything about this book says "Bible."

The text is set in two columns. The typeface is a readable 9 point serifed font. Headings are san serif. Footnotes are italicized.

At the back of the book there is a set of 8 color maps prepared by National Geographic. These are, honestly, some of the best looking Bible maps I've ever seen. There is, however, no index to the maps. An index would greatly improve their usefulness. (Are you listening CEB?)

The publishers of the CEB are giving away copies of the Bible through the blogs of participants in the Blog Tour. I have heard from the recipients of some of the Bibles I've given away. They tell me that the copy they received is a paperback edition which includes the 66 books of the Protestant canon (i.e. no Apocrypha). It sounds as if the typeface and page design are identical to the edition I received. Those beautiful maps are included.

If you would like to receive a free paperback copy of the CEB, just be the first to reply to this blog post. Give me your name and address. I promise I won't publish any identifying information. I need to forward your info to the publisher so that they can send you the Bible.

The image of the CEB at the top of this post was found at amazon.com.

The Sign of Immanuel

2011-12-16T19:31:00.000-08:00

READING THE NEW TESTAMENT INTO THE OLD

Many of the details of the story are lost to history, but this much seems clear. Around the year 732 BCE, King Pekah of Israel and King Rezin of Aram formed an alliance and marched against King Ahaz of Judah. In response to this threat, Ahaz, a descendant of King David, appealed for help to King Tiglath-Pilaser of Assyria.

The prophet Isaiah, a staunch supporter of the Davidic dynasty, was absolutely opposed to Ahaz’s plan to seek foreign support. The prophet confronted the King and declared that his enemies were destined to fail.

“Ask for a sign,” the prophet said.

The King piously demurred, “I will not test the Lord.” Many have questioned the sincerity of Ahaz’s piety. He never showed much attachment to the God of Israel.

“Then the Lord will give you a sign, anyway,” Isaiah replied. “An almah is pregnant...”

A what?

Almah is a Hebrew word which, according to a footnote in the Jewish Study Bible (p. 798-9) “denotes a young woman of marriageable age, whether married or unmarried, whether a virgin or not.”

There is nothing extraordinary about an almah being pregnant. But, let’s finish Isaiah’s prophesy:

The young woman is pregnant and is about to give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel. He will eat butter and honey, and learn to reject evil and choose good. Before the boy learns to reject evil and choose good, the land of the two kings you dread will be abandoned. The LORD will bring upon you, upon your people, and upon your families days unlike any that have come since the day Ephraim broke away from Judah—the king of Assyria. (Isaiah 7:14b-17, CEB)

Exactly what in this constitutes the sign is not entirely clear. It may be the pregnancy, the birth, the name or the child’s diet. What is clear is that, in a few years time, the threat posed by Kings Pekah and Rezin will be gone, but Ahaz will face a greater threat, the Lord’s anger for his alliance with Assyria.

Translation is an art, not a science. If translation were a science, babelfish would work better. The fact is, a word in one language may not have an exact equivalent in another language.

The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was compiled beginning in the third century BCE and ending in the second or first century BCE. When the New Testament, which was written in Greek, quotes from the Hebrew Bible, it uses the Septuagint translation.

At Isaiah 7:14, the Septuagint rendered the Hebrew word almah with the Greek parthenos. In the New Testament era parthenos definitely meant “virgin.” The Gospel of Matthew quotes the Septuagint version of this verse in reference to the birth of Jesus:

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ took place. When Mary his mother was engaged to Joseph, before they were married, she became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Joseph her husband was a righteous man. Because he didn’t want to humiliate her, he decided to call off their engagement quietly. As he was thinking about this, an angel from the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “ Joseph son of David, don’t be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child she carries was conceived by the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you will call him Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. ” Now all of this took place so that what the Lord had spoken through the prophet would be fulfilled:
      Look! A virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son,
      And they will call him, Emmanuel.
     ( Emmanuel means “ God with us. ” )
                         (Matthew 1:18-23, CEB).

Some English versions of the Bible (e.g. the English Standard Version and the Holman Christian Standard Bible) translate almah at Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.” This makes the Hebrew Scripture accord with Matthew’s use of it. This seems to me an illegitimate translation strategy. It removes Isaiah’s prophecy from its historical context and makes it seem as if Isaiah’s oracle was only a prediction of Jesus’ miraculous birth. It is a dishonesty in the service of doctrine.

I prefer the strategy adopted by the CEB and the New Revised Standard Version (among others), translating almah as “young woman” at Isaiah 7:14 and allowing Matthew’s quote from the Septuagint to speak for itself. Matthew’s use of Old Testament prophecy has more to do with typology than prediction anyway.

Some will argue that translating almah as “young woman” undermines the doctrine of the virgin birth. It doesn’t. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke both state clearly that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin. What gets undermined is a false notion of what constitutes prophesy and fulfillment in the Bible.

The picture of King Ahaz and Gandolfi's Painting of Joseph's Dream were both found at Wiki. As a participant in the CEB Blog Tour, I was given a copy of the Common English Bible, and I am able to give a copy of the CEB away each week. Watch for your opportunity to win a free paperback edition of the CEB next week.

Who Wants A Bible?

2011-12-12T17:03:00.000-08:00

As a participant in the Common English Bible "Thank You-Come Again-I Promise" Blog Tour, I can give away a copy of the CEB once each week for three months. I've been reading, and enjoying the CEB.

So, first reply to this post gets a free, handsomely bound copy of the Common English Bible.

Just say "I want it" and give me your mailing information. I promise I won't publish your address!

StoryGuy? Are you out there?

Steamrollers and DNA

2011-12-07T19:11:00.001-08:00

ANACHRONISMS, PARAPHRASES AND TRANSLATIONS

The Living Bible (1971) is a paraphrase of the Christian Scriptures by Baptist preacher Ken Taylor. Taylor based his paraphrase on the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV) translation. Dynamic and highly readable, The Living Bible became a bestseller. I suspect that it has actually been read by many people who might otherwise find the Bible difficult and intimidating.

I remember, years ago, discovering an anachronism in Taylor’s text. In the forty-first chapter of Job, the Lord, speaking from a whirlwind, describes the mythical monster called Leviathan. Here is Taylor’s rendering of verse 30:

His belly is covered with scales as sharp as shards; he drags across the ground like a steamroller!

For comparison, here is the ASV text on which Taylor based his paraphrase:

His underparts are like sharp potsherds: He spreadeth as it were a threshing-wain upon the mire.

Even though there were no steamrollers in Old Testament times, I think that Taylor’s paraphrase is an improvement on his source. What the heck is a threshing-wain anyway? Because The Living Bible is a paraphrase, Taylor’s anachronism doesn’t trouble me. I find the theological biases of The Living Bible much more bothersome than the appearance of modern heavy road construction equipment.

When I went googling to find Taylor’s steamroller reference, I stumbled across another biblical steamroller. This one is found in Eugene Peterson’s The Message. Peterson calls his work a translation because it was made from the original languages. Like The Living Bible, however, The Message is highly interpretive and idiomatic. I like it a lot, but prefer to think of it as an English paraphrase made from the Greek and Hebrew texts.

Peterson's steamroller shows up in Daniel 11:22, which describes a “contemptible” ruler, probably Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Here is Taylor’s rendering:

He'll come in like a steamroller, flattening the opposition. Even the Prince of the Covenant will be crushed.

And for comparison, here is the same verse from my go-to Bible, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):

Armies shall be utterly swept away and broken before him, and the prince of the covenant as well.

Because it is the nature of a paraphrase to be vivid and interpretive, I don’t object to the steamrollers in The Living Bible and The Message.

New Rule: From now on, the appearance of a steamroller in a version of the Bible immediately qualifies that version as a paraphrase.

As a participant in the Common English Bible “Thank You-Come Again-I Promise” Blog Tour, I will soon receive a free copy of the Common English Bible (CEB). I have also been able to give away a free copy of the CEB to a reader of this blog each week for the three months of the tour. So far, I have given away 3 copies of this newly published translation. I would not take part in the blog tour if I didn’t actually like the CEB. There are translations out there that I would not help to promote.

I have been reading the New Testament in the CEB translation. I started a few weeks ago at Matthew and am now poised to begin Revelation. I have had occasional quibbles with the CEB’s translation choices, but that is par for the course. And my quibbles have only been quibbles. Overall, I have found the CEB New Testament to be a clear and lively translation from the Greek.

Last night I read the Johannine Epistles and was surprised to find an anachronism in 1 John 3:9:

Those born from God don’t practice sin because God’s DNA remains in them. They can’t sin because they are born from God.

Just to be clear, DNA was unknown in the first century when 1 John was written. DNA was not discovered until 1869, and its double helix structure was not described until 1953. DNA in this verse is a glaring anachronism.

A footnote in the CEB offers “genetic character” as an alternative to DNA.

For comparison, here is the same verse from the NRSV:

Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God's seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God.

The NRSV’s “seed” is a rather literal translation of the Greek word σπέρμα (sperma). This word has a range of meaning that, according to the Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon, includes “seed of plants....descendants....genetic character, nature, disposition.”

I think that 1 John is saying that Christian believers have undergone an ontological change. Their sinful nature has been replaced by God’s sinless nature. This change goes right down to their very marrow, their seed, their DNA. The CEB’s anachronistic translation brings this meaning out in a powerful and striking way. It is clearer and more vivid to a modern reader than the NRSV’s more literal “seed.”

But it is an anachronism, and probably better suited to a paraphrase than to a translation.

What do you think? Are anachronisms permissible in translations if they accurately render the meaning of the original text, or should that kind of interpretation be left to preachers and the writers of footnotes?

I am not a gambling man, but if I were, I would bet that the second edition of the Common English Bible will not include DNA in 1 John 3:9. The pictures of the steamroller and DNA were both found at wikipedia.

The CEB Doesn't Sound Biblical

2011-12-05T18:17:00.001-08:00

AND THAT'S A GOOD THING

One of my favorite movies of recent years was the Coen Brothers’ take on True Grit. If you have seen the film, you know that the characters, all of them, have an unusual way of speaking. They don’t use contractions. Instead of “I’m” they say “I am.” Instead of “won’t” they say “will not.” This quirk of dialogue was taken over directly from the Coen Brothers’ source material: the novel True Grit by Charles Portis. It is almost as if Portis’ typewriter was missing the apostrophe key.

This curious speech pattern gives the Coen Brothers’ movie a strange quality, an alien gravity. It is almost biblical and that is appropriate in a story replete with religious themes and images.

I heard somewhere (I wish I could find a reference) that people living in Arkansas in the 1870s, the movie’s setting, actually spoke this way. They learned to read from the King James Bible and that version of Scripture stamped its mark on the patterns and cadences of their speech.

I was taught long ago to avoid the use of contractions in formal writing. (Is blogging formal?) Everyday speech is another matter. I had a friend in high school who did not use contracted forms in speaking. It was, frankly, a little weird.

What I’m saying is this: English spoken today without contractions sounds biblical and odd. But that’s not right. The Bible was not written to sound odd. It was written in the everyday language of its first readers. Granted, some of the Scriptures are more formal than others, some more poetic, some more dialogic, but all of the Scriptures were intended by their writers to be read aloud and, I think, to sound right.

In ancient times all reading, even private reading, was done aloud.

The recently published Common English Bible is replete with contractions. A page from the CEB website notes:

The Common English Bible is the only translation to extensively use contractions where the text warrants an engaging conversational style (not used in divine or poetic discourse).

No translation is perfect, of course, but the CEB has much to commend it. One of the things I like about it is that it doesn’t sound strange. It reads like normal English. Dare I say that it doesn’t sound “biblical?” When read aloud, the CEB sounds right.

A sample verse from my daily Bible reading:

Although you’ve never seen him, you love him. Even though you don’t see him now, you trust him and so rejoice with a glorious joy that is too much for words. (1 Peter 1:8 CEB)

As a participant in the Common English Bible “Thank You-Come Again-I Promise” Blog Tour, I can give away a Bible a week for three months. First person to reply to this post gets a free copy of the CEB. Just say “I want it” and, after I reply, send me your address. I’ll forward your information to B and B Media, and they will send you your Bible.

The picture of Hailee Steinfeld, Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon and Josh Brolin in True Grit was borrowed from this website.

Well, Are You Jesus the Nazarene or Aren't You?

2011-11-28T17:05:00.000-08:00

WIN A FREE BIBLE

A 1631 edition of the King James Bible printed in London contained a typographical error that earned it the nickname “The Wicked Bible.” Exodus 20:14 should have read “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Instead, it said “Thou shalt commit adultery.”

The printer was heavily fined. Today, copies of the Wicked Bible are rare and valuable.

Last week I stumbled upon a similar error in an electronic version of the recently published Common English Bible. I point this out mostly because I find it amusing. I very much like both the Common English Bible and You Version, an app that makes many versions of the Bible available for no charge. I use and recommend both the CEB and You Version.

So here’s the typo:

Jesus knew everything that was to happen to him, so he went out and asked, "Who are you looking for?" They answered, "Jesus the Nazarene." He said to them, "I Am." (Judas, his betrayer, was standing with them.) When he said, "I Am," they shrank back and fell to the ground. He asked them again, "Who are you looking for?" They said, "Jesus the Nazarene." "I’m not," he replied. (John 18:4-7)

How did this happen? It seems that somehow, the words “‘I’m not,’ he replied” were misplaced from the end of John 18:17 and are actually Peter’s answer to the question “Aren’t you one of this man’s disciples?”

I have contacted You Version and have been assured that the mistake will be corrected soon.

Print copies of the CEB do not contain this typo. As part of the Common English Bible “Thank You-Come Again-I Promise” Blog Tour I can give away another free Bible. First person to reply to this post wins it.

I found the image of the infamous misprint at Wikipedia, of course. If you win the Bible, I will ask you to send me your address in a reply which I will not publish. The Bible will be sent directly from the publisher.

The Common English Bible "Thank You-Come Again-I Promise" Blog Tour

2011-11-21T17:50:00.001-08:00

WIN A FREE BIBLE!

As I've mentioned in earlier posts on this blog, I try to read through the Bible about once a year. I like to read different translations, so when a free-for-the-asking promotional paperback edition of the Common English Bible (CEB) New Testament was made available last year, I didn't think twice about requesting a copy. I put it on the shelf for an eventual read-through.

This year I read the Hebrew Scriptures in the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation. As a friend of mine says, it is refreshing to read the Old Testament in a translation that has no Christian bias. I also, for the first time, read the books of the Hebrew Bible in the Jewish order: Torah, Prophets, Writings. It was enlightening.

When I finished the Tanakh translation, about a week ago, I picked up that free copy of the CEB New Testament. As of the moment of this writing, I have read from Matthew through the sixth chapter of John and I'm liking it. The CEB seems to be a sound, scholarly translation written in vigorous modern English.

Yesterday, I downloaded the entire CEB, including the Apocrypha, to my mobile device using the You Version app. Both the app and the CEB download are free. I've noticed a few formatting issues in the CEB text, but I expect that these will soon be resolved in an update. (You Version, are you reading this?)

At any rate, yesterday I also saw that Craig, over at his Simul Iustus et Peccator blog had joined the Common English Bible "Thank You-Come Again-I Promise" Blog Tour. I had to look into this. It seems that the CEB, as part of a fairly aggressive promotional campaign, is giving away Bibles to bloggers who join the tour.

I have to say, I don't work for the CEB or its publisher. I just genuinely like this translation. And a free Bible in A "leather-like binding" is hard to pass up. So I'm signing on. If you have a blog of your own, you can join the Blog Tour, too. Follow this link for the details.

As part of this blog tour, I can give away one copy of the CEB for every week that I participate. That means that you can win a free CEB Bible through this blog! For this week, I'll award the free Bible to the first person who replies to this post. Hit the reply button, and say you want the Bible. I will reply to your comment and ask you to send me your mailing address in another reply which I will NOT publish. I will then send your address to the CEB people and they will mail you a Bible.

I'll say more about the CEB, and give more readers a chance to win a copy, in future posts. Happy Thanksgiving!

October 21, 2011

2011-10-19T20:00:00.000-07:00

STILL NOT THE END OF THE WORLD

The followers of Baptist preacher William Miller believed that Jesus would return by March 21, 1844. When this prediction proved false, the Millerites did some quick recalculations and pinned their hopes on October 22 of that same year. It is probably a relief to you and me that this date passed without apocalyptic incident, but the Millerites came to call it “The Great Disappointment.”

A short time later Ellen G. White had a vision in which she learned that, while nothing visible had happened on October 22, 1844, something invisible had, in fact, occurred. Jesus had entered the sanctuary of the heavenly temple. On the basis of this teaching, the phoenix of Seventh Day Adventism arose from the ashes of the Millerite movement.

In 1992, Harold Camping wrote a book called 1994? in which he speculated that the Rapture might occur on September 6 of that titular year. The day, of course, came and went like any other day. Nothing visible happened. This was no problem for Camping. As Ellen White had done, Camping simply explained that something invisible had happened. The “Church Age” had ended. From that time on, salvation could not be found in the institutional churches. Instead, salvation was available only through Camping’s ministry.

In the 1994? book, Camping left himself an out. His calculations also indicated that, should the world last that long, May 21, 2011 would be a significant date. As May 21 approached we saw the billboards and caravan vehicles and media reports trumpeting Camping’s message. May 21, 2011 would be Judgment Day. “The Bible Guarantees It!” On that day the true believers would be caught up in the air to meet Jesus. Worldwide earthquakes would mark the beginning of a 6 month period of punishment, horror and tribulation. Then on October 21, the planet earth would cease to exist.

As we all by now know, no judgment took place on May 21. At least there was no visible judgment. At sfgate.com, reporter Justin Berton writes that Camping “now characterizes May 21 as a ‘tremendous event’ that unleashed a spiritual judgment day, just not the material one that he expected.”

It all sounds a little familiar.

Harold Camping is now pinning his apocalyptic hope on Friday, October 21. Quoting again from the sfgate article:

On recently recorded podcasts, Camping hedged his Oct. 21 prediction - "Probably there will be no pain suffered by anyone because of their rebellion against God" - but he maintained that, ultimately, the end is nigh.

"I really am beginning to think as I've restudied these matters that there's going to be no big display of any kind," Camping said. "The end is going to come very, very quietly."

Camping is beginning to sound a little more like T.S. Eliot than John of Patmos.

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
--T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men (1925)

Camping will be wrong again. He will be wrong for all of the same reasons that he was wrong before. He will be wrong for the same reason that every date-setter has been wrong. The bible doesn't work the way they claim.

I plan to be here still on October 22, which, perhaps coincidentally, is the 167th anniversary of the Great Disappointment.

Illustrating this post is Albrecht Dürer's magnificent woodcut of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Last month, the Bad Theology blog chronicled some of the misguided end times speculation that centered around Rosh Hashanah. It is my sincere prayer that we will all one day give up this stupid date-setting game.

Preaching Like Matthew, or Mark...

2011-10-14T18:10:00.000-07:00

OR LUKE, OR...

Last month I attended the annual Professional Leaders’ Conference (PLC) of the Northern Illinois Synod. Our speaker this year was Rev. Dr. Thomas G. Long, professor of preaching at Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta. As might be expected from a PhD homiletician, Dr. Long is a knowledgeable and engaging speaker.

During one of his presentations, Dr. Long said that, in today’s culture, we should preach “less like Luke and more like Matthew. You know Luke,” he said, “story, story, story, story. But Matthew is story, teaching, story, ethics....” This was an interesting point in its own right, but it sent my mind chasing down a rabbit trail.

New Testament scholars tell us that Matthew and Luke both used Mark, and a hypothetical document called “Q” as sources for their own works. It’s clear from his use of Mark that Matthew tended to follow the wording of his sources but felt free to rearrange their order. Luke, on the other hand, stuck more closely to the order of his source material, but felt free to rewrite it.

Matthew rearranges. Luke rewrites.

Matthew grouped his teaching material into five discourses interspersed among narratives. Luke incorporated the teaching material into his narrative. That’s how Dr. Long could describe Luke as “story, story, story, story” and Matthew as “story, teaching, story, ethics.”

So this set me thinking: “what would it mean to preach like Mark?” A sermon in the style of Mark’s Gospel would be short, dark, somewhat ambiguous and open-ended.

And John? A sermon in the style of John’s Gospel would be a story followed by a long discussion of its spiritual meaning.

During a break at PLC, I mentioned this to Dr. Long. He said, “Yes, and there would be poetry in a sermon in John’s style.” This made me revise my thinking about preaching like Luke. Luke also used poetry and had a rather high-falutin’ prose style.

Then I wondered “what would it be like to preach in the style of Paul’s letters?” Paul’s writings have a good deal of personal testimony. (Paul was his own favorite example). Paul was frequently blunt and occasionally crude. He had harsh words for his opponents, but was warm and personable toward his friends.

I suppose that it might also be possible to preach like the Book of Revelation, but I wouldn’t recommend it. It would only confuse and frighten people.

The painting of Martin Luther preaching was by Lucas Cranach the Elder. I don't think Martin Luther would care too much which which New Testament writer a preacher styled a sermon after, as long as the cross of Christ was proclaimed clearly.

How to Read the Bible from Cover to Cover

2011-09-01T17:08:00.000-07:00

IT’S LIKE EATING AN ELEPHANT

Preachers like me are always telling people to read theirBibles. Personally, I think that even non-believers should read the entireBible, if only for the sake of cultural literacy. Of course there is a smalldanger that reading the Bible might make believers of them. On the other hand,there is probably an equal danger that actually reading the Bible could cause abeliever to lose faith. In spite of these dangers, I would encourage everyoneto read the Bible.

I personally read the Bible through about once a year.

I know that the idea of reading the entire Bible is dauntingfor many people. It is a thick book and parts of it are difficult. I also knowthat there are many people who have tried to read the Bible beginning atGenesis 1:1 and given up by the time they hit one of those long lists of“begats” (e.g. Genesis 5) or the arcane Levitical laws dealing with thediagnosis and treatment of leprosy (see Leviticus 13 and 14).

Readers should probably know that both testaments of theBible are front loaded with good stories and get progressively weirder as theygo along.

With all of that in mind, if you would like to read theBible from cover to cover, here are some suggestions that might help you reachRevelation 22:21.

Take it in small pieces. The only way to eatan elephant is one bite at a time. Reading for 15 or 20 minutes a day shouldeasily get most readers through the entire Bible (even with the Apocrypha) inless than a year. You don’t have to be legalistic about this. It is even OK toskip a day every now and then. Just keep in mind that the way to reach any goalis by taking incremental steps.

It’s OK to skim some parts. Really, it is.Those genealogies, for instance. If it says “Joe was the father of Fred andFred was the father of Percy and Percy was the father of Jack,” the pertinentinformation is “Joe...Fred...Percy...Jack.” You don’t have to read every word.

This goes for passages like Numbers 7 as well. In that chapterthe leaders of the 12 tribes of Israel offer identical sacrifices one after theother. This is boilerplate. The only things that change from paragraph toparagraph are the number of the day and the name of the leader. It’s OK to skimthis stuff.

Use a readable translation. My friend Matt says thatthere are more than 500 English versions of the Bible. Some of them are easierto read than others. I like the New Revised Standard Version that we use inchurch but I know that there are many easier-to-read translations for example,the Contemporary English Version, the New Living Translation, and the CommonEnglish Bible. The point is, if you find one translation difficult, there isprobably another that will suit you better.

A caveat: Don’t read a paraphrase. Paraphrased Bibleslike Ken Taylor’s The Living Bible and Eugene Peterson’s The Messagehave their place. If, however, you tell me that you have read the entire Biblefrom one of these paraphrases, I will snort derisively in your generaldirection. I’m a snob like that.

Seriously, there are many good, readable translations of theBible. There is no need to resort to a paraphrase. The time to read aparaphrase is after you’ve read a good translation.

Get some help. A good study Bible can be a big aid to understanding the Bible.Introductions to the individual books of the Bible will set them in theirhistorical context and make their message clearer. Footnotes help to clarifyobscure passages. I still recommend Augsburg Fortress’s Lutheran StudyBible.

You don’t have to read it in order. If the idea ofreading four Gospels in a row doesn’t thrill you, break them up with otherbooks of the Bible. There are many Bible reading plans available that might behelpful.

Do whatever it takes. When I read difficultportions of any text, I sometimes find that it helps if I read out loud. Idon’t know why. I just know that it aids my understanding. If you find thatstanding on your head and whistling show tunes helps you read, then stand onyour head and whistle show tunes.

Finally, enjoy it. Reading the Bible can be bothpleasurable and rewarding. If you think it will be a chore, then it probablywill. If you go into it with a positive attitude, you may find that reading theBible is a lot of fun.

Martin Luther read through the Bible twice each year,probably including the Apocrypha, and probably in Latin, if not Hebrew andGreek. Martin Luther makes me feel like a piker, but then again, he didn’t havethe internet to distract him. The painting of the woman reading a Bible is by17th c. Dutch painter Gerrit Dou.

Get Behind Me, Satan

2011-08-29T18:40:00.000-07:00

GET BACK IN LINE

In church yesterday our Gospel text was Matthew 16:21–28, the passage in which Jesus says to his disciple Peter “Get behind me, Satan.”

The situation is this: Jesus has just told the disciples that he must suffer, die and rise again. Peter rebukes Jesus, “This must never happen to you.” In turn, Jesus rebukes Peter.

As recently as verse 18, Jesus had praised Peter as the “rock” on which he will build the church. Now, because Peter has expressed a vision contrary to God’s, and perhaps because this vision is genuinely tempting, Jesus calls Peter “Satan”--the adversary and tempter.

It’s a strange expression, “Get behind me, Satan.” I know at least three jokes built on the phrase. I guess I have always thought it was an idiom meaning something like “Get away from me,” or “Get out of my sight.”

Working with the text last week, I found something in it that I’d never seen before. In the Greek New Testament, Jesus says,

“Ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, Σατανᾶ.”

I will transliterate that “hUpage opiso mou, Satana” and translate it roughly, “Go behind me, Satan.”

It’s that second Greek word “opiso” that I’m concerned with. It means “behind” in a spatial sense. And it occurs again in the very next verse, where Jesus says, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” In Greek it looks like this:

“Εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἐλθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι.”

Do you see our little friend opiso in there? (I know, it's hard to miss since I bolded it). A very literal translation would be “If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him take up his cross and follow me.”

Do you see what is going on here? In verse 23, Jesus tells Peter, “Get behind me.” In verse 24, he tells those who wish “to come behind” him that they must take up their crosses. So, when Jesus said, “Get behind me, Satan,” he was telling Peter that, as a disciple, he needed to get back in line, following behind Jesus.

Peter is called “Satan” in this passage because he would lead Jesus into a way of human glorification through power. Jesus rejects that way in favor of a way of giving and self-sacrifice and calls his disciples to follow.

The masculine gender in my literal translation of Matthew 16:24 reflects the original Greek in which masculine pronouns (“he,” “him” and “his”) were used generically. I believe that Jesus’ words apply to women as well as men. Scripture quotations other than my own rough translations are from the New Revised Standard Version. The Greek was copied and pasted from the Society for Biblical Literature Greek New Testament. Most English translations obscure, perhaps of necessity, the repeated use of “opiso.” Scott Hilburn's Argyle Sweater cartoon may be blasphemous, but it makes the fourth "Get behind me, Satan" joke that I know, and it nicely illustrates the subtitle of this post. I found it here.

If the Bible Is Not Inerrant

2011-08-16T19:00:00.000-07:00

WHAT IS IT?

I began a recent post on this blog with these words:

“Some people read the Bible as if it were one thing: a single book by one Author expressing a single point of view in one voice, God’s.”

I’m still not sure that I punctuated that sentence correctly, but I think it says what I mean: the Bible is not what some people claim that it is.

If I’m right (and I think I am), if the Bible is not one thing, if it is not what the Fundamentalists and literalists and biblicists and inerrantists claim, if it is not the direct words (plural) of God, if it is not a single book, if it is not the work of a single Author (written with or without the help of ghost writers), if it does not speak in a single voice, if it is not a rule book or a road map or a verse mine for proof texts, if it is not in every instance factual in matters of history and science...

If the Bible is none of these things, then what is it?

I believe that the Bible is both more complex and more wonderful than a doctrine of inerrancy suggests.

The Bible is a collection of books containing many kinds of literature: history, myth, poetry, prayer, prophecy, historical romance, fable, parable, allegory, apocalypse, epistle, etc.

The Bible was written by (not just through or in the voice of) unique, inspired people of faith who, like Ezra and Isaiah, sometimes disagree with one another, and who nonetheless bear witness to God.

The many works that make up the Bible are united under the umbrella of a great meta-narrative, a story that begins in Eden and ends in Paradise. It is the story of the Creator God who seeks reconciliation with alienated humanity--God who reaches out through patriarchs and their fractious progeny, through a chosen and sometimes disobedient nation, through a Christ who came out of that nation--a holy, human, crucified Messiah--and through his clay-footed followers.

The Bible is a library in leather covers, a collection of treasures in clay vessels, a symbol pointing beyond itself to a greater reality, a delightful, maddening, difficult, joyful, fearful and sometimes contradictory love letter. It is the question to all of your answers about God.

The Bible is, as Martin Luther said, “the cradle of the Christ.” It is the word (singular) of God and a witness to the Word (singular, cap) of God. It contains the knowledge sufficient for salvation.

The Bible is an invitation to take part in a conversation, an invitation to wrestle with the Lord, an invitation to find your place in the story that begins in Eden and ends in Paradise.

And need I say that the Bible is even more than that?

Punctuation is a pesky thing when one is deliberately writing run-on sentences. I purloined the picture of the scroll from this website dedicated to short mystery stories.

Good Stuff to Read

2011-08-15T18:49:00.000-07:00

FROM OTHER BLOGS

If I am about anything, it is the proposition that you do not have to shut off your brain to be a Christian. You do not need to ignore the plain evidence in front of your eyes to be a faithful follower of Christ. You do not need to swallow intellectual camels and strain at doctrinal gnats. You don’t, in other words, have to buy into a doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

Of course, the biblical inerrantists will tell you otherwise. If, however, you find the idea that the Bible contains neither errors of fact nor contradictions untenable, then you can still be a Christian--my kind of Christian.

For your consideration, here are some recent posts from other blogs refuting the doctrine of inerrancy.

First, the estimable Dr. David Lose gives “Four Good Reasons Not to Read the Bible Literally.” Among them is number 3:

“Most Christians across history have not read the Bible literally.
We tend to think of anything that is labeled "conservative" as being older and more traditional. Oddly enough, however, the doctrine of inerrancy that literalists aim to conserve is only about a century and a half old. Not only did many of the Christian Church's brightest theologians not subscribe to anything like inerrancy, many adamantly opposed such a notion....”

Read all four reasons here.

Next up, and somewhat heavier reading, is Dr. Tim Henderson’s three-part review of Christian Smith’s book The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. I don’t have a pull quote, but part one of the series can be found here, part two here and part three here.

Peter Rollins has a pointed essay on “How to Cut Up the Bible Without Anyone Noticing.” He says:

“For large numbers of churchgoers it is presented as a clean, coherent and cohesive text, an image that we tend to adopt for ourselves. Then, depending upon what we think the message of the text is, we simply refuse to see anything that might contradict our reading. We thus treat those parts of the text that might contradict our interpretation as taboo. In other words we see them without acknowledging them, we look at them in much the same way as a cow gazes at a passing car. When we are confronted with the broken nature of the text and the way in which we have repressed some parts of it at the expense of others we can often be shocked.”

Read it all here. (A tip of the blogger’s bonnet to both Rachel Held Evans and James McGrath for pointing this post out).

And finally, Dr. James McGrath gives us his take on “Brickical Literalism.”

“Fortunately for most Biblical literalists, they are persuaded that the text can’t possibly mean something that they don’t want to believe to be the case. And that’s why, in practice, there are no true Biblical literalists. But an exploration of what consistent Biblical literalism might look like makes clear why there shouldn’t be any Biblical literalists, and why we are perhaps fortunate that there really aren’t any.”

The whole article can be found here.

I hope, in the next few days, to write a post considering the question: "If the Bible is not inerrant, what is it?"

Theological Smackdown

2011-08-12T16:59:00.000-07:00

ISAIAH V. EZRA

Some people read the Bible as if it were one thing: a single book by one Author expressing a single point of view in one voice, God’s. Frankly, I don’t get it. Even a cursory glance between the covers of a Bible is enough to see that it is not a single book. The Bible is a collection of books written by a number of different people.

A slightly deeper look reveals that the Bible does not speak in a single voice. There are some portions that claim to be the direct words of God; “Thus says the Lord,” is a favorite expression of the Hebrew prophets. Other parts of the Bible tell stories about God and humans: stories in which God is a character. Still other parts of the Bible are clearly human words directed toward God; think of the many prayers in the book of Psalms.

Digging deeper still, we find that the biblical writers sometimes had different views of God. Their views are not always easy to reconcile. I don’t think that they were ever meant to be reconciled.

I have quoted Marcus Borg’s distinction between the “Word (singular) of God” and the “words (plural) of God” before. I think it is useful. The Bible, as the word of God, reveals God to us. Only portions of Scripture purport to be the direct words of God.

At my pastor’s text study this week, we discussed Isaiah 56:4–7.

“For thus says the Lord:
To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,
    who choose the things that please me
    and hold fast my covenant,
I will give, in my house and within my walls,
    a monument and a name
    better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
    that shall not be cut off.
And the foreigners who join
themselves to the Lord,
    to minister to him,
   to love the name of the Lord,
    and to be his servants,
all who keep the sabbath, and do not profane it,
    and hold fast my covenant—
   these I will bring to my holy mountain,
and make them joyful in my house of prayer;
   their burnt offerings and their sacrifices
   will be accepted on my altar;
for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”

Isaiah is saying that eunuchs and foreigners, people excluded by the Law of Moses, will be welcome to worship in the Lord’s temple. Isaiah has an expansive, inclusive vision of God and of God’s people.

Scholars tell us that this passage from Isaiah was written after the people of Judah had returned from their exile in Babylon. This was the time when the city of Jerusalem and the temple of the Lord were being rebuilt. It was also the time that the priest Ezra was promoting a vision very different from Isaiah’s.

Ezra had a narrow, exclusivist vision of a pure nation. In the fourth chapter of the book of Ezra, we are told that the Samaritans were not allowed to help the returned exiles in the work of rebuilding the temple. In chapter 10, Ezra orders the men of Judah who had married foreign women to send their wives and children away.

Isaiah’s inclusivity and Ezra’s exclusivity are both biblical.

It is interesting to me that these two visions, one inclusive and one exclusive, still play out among God’s people. As an example, my own Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has been shaken by controversies concerning the ordination of partnered homosexuals. The inclusivists sing “all are welcome, all are welcome” while the exlcusivists denounce partnered homosexuals as immoral and unworthy to serve in the ministry of Word and Sacrament.

Both sides can claim biblical warrant to justify their position.

I suppose that the question we must ask is, “Who’s right?” Who has the correct understanding of God’s word (singular) and God’s will? Is God an inclusivist or an exclusivist?

In the end, I suspect that our answers will tell us more about ourselves than about God.

Isaiah 56:4-7 was quoted from the New Revised Standard Version. Wiki was the source of the picture of Isaiah from Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling.

Joel is Giving Away a Book

2011-08-04T14:53:00.000-07:00

I hope to win it but you can enter the giveaway, too. Just go here and post a comment.

If I win, I'll read the book and pass it along.

Good Read

2011-07-28T18:35:00.000-07:00

I've made my case, off and on, against the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Today, John Petty blogged Ten Reasons Why Literalism Makes No Sense. Here is his tenth reason:

Tenth, one of the biggest problems with inerrancy is that it gives too much support to hierarchical authority. The Bible is a complex book. Sometimes it seems contradictory. Sometimes it seems abstruse and esoteric. Sometimes it seems conflicted. Fundamentalist interpreters claim to understand it all, which gives the interpreters themselves an aura of inerrancy.

The preceding nine reasons are equally cogent. Read them all here.

The Biggest Dandelion in the World

2011-07-24T17:17:00.000-07:00

A PARABLE OF THE KINGDOM (for J. H.)

When I started this blog, I deliberately chose not to use it to post my sermons. That has never been its purpose in my mind. Today I had to cancel church because of a vicious storm that knocked out power and phone service and toppled a tree across a road that I have to travel to get from home to church. What follows is a part of the sermon I would have preached this morning. I post it only because a friend requested that I do so. First the relevant passage of Scripture:

[Jesus} put before them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed in with three measures of flour until all of it was leavened.”

It may have been the largest dandelion in the world. If it wasn’t, you couldn’t prove it by me because it was certainly the biggest dandelion that I’ve ever seen. And it was growing in my backyard right next to the air conditioner.

It was massive. The leaves were about 2 feet long and 8 or maybe 10 inches across at the widest point.

We have one of those two-pronged weed pullers on about a 4 foot handle. It’s good for uprooting regular dandelions without bending over. We tried it on the giant mutant dandelion and the tool began to bend!

So I got out the garden spade and started to dig it out. I got about 6 inches down before I broke the root. I’m not kidding when I say that it looked like a tree root. It was almost an inch in diameter. I have no idea how deep it actually went.

If I told you that I broke the shovel, well, then I’d be exaggerating. Or, if I said that there were birds nesting in this dandelion, then I’d be exaggerating too. But it is no exaggeration to say that it was the biggest dandelion I’ve ever seen, maybe the biggest in the world.

So, how would you feel about it if I told you that the Kingdom of God is like that giant dandelion? What if I said that where God holds dominion, it is like the biggest dandelion in the world?

I suppose it might depend on how you feel about dandelions. Do you think they’re pretty? Do you like dandelion green salads? (You could have fed a family of five on this one). Or do you like dandelion wine?

Or, do you, like most of us, think that dandelions are noxious weeds? That they need to be rooted out or they will take over our lawns?

* * *

Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed and, yes, Jesus was exaggerating when he said that it is the smallest of all the seeds. He was also exaggerating when he said that it grew into a tree and birds could nest in its branches. Mustard seeds are small and they grow into a substantial shrub, but still, Jesus was exaggerating.

And if his point was that the God’s dominion starts small and grows big then he made his point. But using mustard as a parable for the Kingdom is something like comparing God’s reign and rule to a giant dandelion.

On the one hand, mustard is useful. It can be used to season food. It can be used medicinally. (You’ve heard of mustard plaster, right?) But on the other hand, mustard grows like a weed in Palestine. It has to be rooted out of wheat fields and barley fields. It has to be pulled up or it will take over your garden.

So when he compared the Kingdom to mustard, well, Jesus was saying that God’s dominion is like a lowly, humble, even noxious plant...which God makes good of. Perhaps Jesus was even saying that the Kingdom of God is made up of lowly, humble, and even noxious people...whom God makes good of.

* * *

And Jesus told another parable. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is like yeast. A woman added a lump of it to three measures of flour. By one estimate that’s enough flour to make 100 loaves of bread.

Now I don’t know about you, but I think of yeast as a good thing. Last night I made a pizza on the grill and the crust was all crispy and bubbly and good because I put a packet of yeast in three cups of flour.

But if Jesus meant that yeast is a good thing in this parable, it is the only place in Scripture that I know of where yeast is considered good. Usually it’s a negative thing.

Campus pastor Scott Alan reinterprets the parable of the yeast this way:

He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a bad apple that a woman took and mixed in with three bushels of apples until all of them were spoiled.”

In other words, all of these parables are telling us that God’s Kingdom comes into this world in surprising, unexpected, humble, maybe even noxious ways. The Kingdom does not come in glory. The King does not come riding on a white charger or sitting on a golden throne.

The King comes humble and riding on a donkey. The King comes nailed to a cross, dying between two thieves.

The Kingdom comes by means of a cross. And just like yeast leavening 3 measures of flour, or mustard growing wild in the fields, or a giant dandelion taking over my backyard...the cross changes everything.

The Scripture quotation is from the New Revised Standard Version. The image of the dandelion came from this website. Some of the thinking that went into this sermon was inspired by, or perhaps stolen from Mark G. Vitalis Hoffman’s commentary at the always excellent Working Preacher website.

A Confession, a Thank You Note...

2011-07-18T19:15:00.000-07:00

AND A STATEMENT OF FAITH

Last June, voting members at the Northern Illinois Synod’s Annual Assembly were given a gift, a book titled The Word of Jesus. It is a beautifully made little hardcover book with a dust jacket and a sewn-in ribbon marker. The pages are heavy slick stock. The book contains 60 quotations of Jesus’ words from the Gospels illustrated with 33 lovely photographs. It was compiled by Douglas Koons and Gideon Devanasen. I had the pleasure of meeting Pastor Devanasen once when he visited the United States. At that time he was bishop of the Arcot Lutheran Church in India. The Arcot Lutheran Church has a companion synod relationship with the Northern Illinois Synod.

A charming and intelligent man, Bishop Devaesan had a stroke in 2008 and had to resign his position with the church. The book was, apparently, a project that he and Douglas Koons undertook while the Bishop was making recovery.

Which brings me to my confession: When I picked up my copy of The Word of Jesus, I thought, “This is an extravagant gift” and it crossed my mind that the Arcot Lutheran should be receiving gifts from us, not giving them.

As soon as I thought it, I realized I was wrong. I like to think I’m an enlightened guy, but my own thoughts convicted me of a certain bigotry, an unwarranted assumption of cultural superiority.

This stuff runs deep in us.

So to my note of thanks: I used The Word of Jesus as bedtime devotional reading for about two weeks, contemplating the quotations, getting lost in the photographs and praying that Jesus’ words might take flesh in my own life. I am grateful for this generous gift from the Arcot Lutheran Church. I intend to write thank you notes both to our companion synod and to Douglas Koons.

I won’t mention, but I am no less grateful for, the gift of having my eyes opened to the deep-seated flaw in my character, my assumption of cultural superiority.

And the statement of faith: At the end of the book there are two sections of “Commentary,” one by Douglas Koons and the other by Gideon Davenasen. This quote from Koons’s commentary struck me as particularly trenchant and insightful:

“Faith is a surrendering of ourselves unto God as God has surrendered unto us in Jesus Christ. It is not about sets of belief systems created by various Christian communitines that must be seen as correct ways to think of Jesus. For there is no idea or creed, doctrine or theology that can adequately express the grace that is faith. When we are scattered, disbelieving and distracted by all of life’s intensity, God is present in our lives. As there is light even in the shadows of the earth, God’s grace is present in our doubt. An early follower of Jesus was a man named Paul. In one of his letters to the disciples at Corinth he writes, ‘For now we see though a glass darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but t hen shall I know even as I also am known.”

The illustration accompanying this post is a page from The Word of Jesus. The image was found at the publisher's website, here.

Did Abraham Lie?

2011-06-23T08:01:00.000-07:00

PATRIARCHS WITH THE BARK STILL ON THEM

I recently finished reading Rachel Held Evans’ book Evolving in Monkey Town. In it she relates the story of her crisis of faith. Raised with the certainty of a Bible Belt Fundamentalist and trained to defend biblical inerrancy, she came to question the doctrines she held dear. In the process, she grew into a new faith, one that embraces ambiguity and mystery. If this sounds the least bit interesting to you, I can recommend the book.

There may be a certain irony here, or it may just be a testament to my eclectic reading habits, but the same shipment that brought me Rachel Held Evan’s book also contained my copy of the Apologetics Study Bible. The notes to this Bible harmonize discrepancies among the various writings of Scripture and provide allegedly logical reasons to believe. For example, there are footnotes to Matthew 27 and Acts 1 that give a familiar explanation for the differing accounts of Judas’ death.

Regular readers of this blog may wonder why I spent the money on the Apologetics Study Bible. Curiosity is part of the answer. I generally feel that apologetics, as it is presented in this Study Bible (and as Rachel Held Evans was taught it) is a waste of time. But, I once heard someone say “I want to understand my opponent’s view well enough to teach it.” So, that is the rest of the answer. I may not agree, but I want to understand.

On Monday, I was reading chapter 22 of Genesis which tells the fascinating, horrifying, difficult and ultimately important story that the Jews call the ‘Akedah, the Binding of Isaac. In this tale, God asks Abraham to offer his beloved only son, Isaac as a sacrifice. Abraham then travels with Isaac, two servants and a donkey to a remote place. Abraham leaves the servants at a certain place saying,

"Stay here with the donkey. The boy and I will go over there to worship; then we’ll come back to you." (Gen. 22:5 HCSB)

Abraham and Isaac go a little farther. Abraham builds an altar, places wood upon it, ties Isaac up hand and foot, and raises the knife to kill him. At the last moment, an angel of the Lord stops Abraham from killing his son and God provides a ram for the sacrifice.

A footnote in the Apologetics Study Bible raised (and answered) a question that had not occurred to me: Did Abraham lie? The note in question reads:

“22:2,5 Since God wanted Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice (v. 2) some have charged that Abraham lied in telling his servants, ‘The boy and I will ... come back to you.’ (v.5). However Hebrews 11:17, 19 clarifies that Abraham’s response to God’s test of his faith was to believe that, if necessary, the Lord would raise Isaac from the dead.” (Apologetics Study Bible, p. 37)

And in fact, that is what the book of Hebrews says. Reading the New Testament backwards into the Hebrew Bible is a suspect strategy, but, in this case, if one wishes to defend Abraham against the charge of lying, it may be effective.

Interestingly, the Jewish Study Bible offers a similar explanation (which I have bolded below) of Abraham’s apparent lie as one possibility among others:

“5. Abraham may be concealing the truth from his servants (lest they prevent him from carrying out God’s will), from Isaac (lest he flee) and from himself (lest the frank acknowledgment of his real intention cause his resolve to break). Alternately, he may be expressing his profound trust in God’s promise, casting his faith and hope as a prediction.” (Jewish Study Bible, p. 46).

I like to think that I am a careful reader. Still, it never occurred to me to question whether Abraham lied to his servants. I simply assumed that he did. After all, he had a track record as a liar. In Genesis 12, Abraham (then known as Abram) tells the King of Egypt that his wife Sarah (called Sarai at this point) is actually his sister. In chapter 20, Abraham tries the same stunt with King Abimelech of Gerar. Abraham “was practiced at the art of deception” as Mick Jagger sang.

For about 10 years of my ministry, I served as chaplain to a home for troubled children. We had 60 kids in residence, most of them adjudicated to us by the courts, and all of them from dysfunctional homes. As I told the stories of the Patriarchs to these children, I realized just how messed up the home lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob really were. These were not paragons of virtue. They were fallible, sinful and all-too-human. They could (and did) lie, cheat and steal. And I love them the more for it, because I too am fallible, sinful and human. The kids at the home related to the Patriarchs and their families in very real and profound ways.

I understand the temptation to sanitize the character of Abraham. Who wants to believe that God would choose a liar to be the recipient of promises and to become the “father of nations?” But God did not choose Abraham because Abraham was better than anyone else. God chose Abraham for God’s own reasons. Perhaps it was for Abraham’s outrageous faithfulness, which included a willingness to sacrifice even his beloved only son. It certainly wasn’t becausw he always told the truth.

You may reduce the Patriarchs to Sunday School flannel-graph cut-outs or make plastic action figures of them. Me? I’ll take my treasures in earthen vessels. I like my Patriarchs with the bark still on them.

The Scripture quotation is from the Holman Christian Standard Bible because that is the translation used in the Apologetics Study Bible. The Mick Jagger quote is from the Rolling Stone’s 1969 hit “You Can’t Always Get What You Want.” I took Chagall's painting of the 'Akedah from this website. I loves me some Chagall.

A Nod To Ekklesia

2011-06-20T13:20:00.000-07:00

DON’T GIVE MARGARITAS TO PIGS

A friend who calls himself “The Classicist” left a comment on my last post. He wrote:

“I like your nod Εκκλεσια [sic] there at the end!”

While the comment is perfectly transparent to me, I’m sure that most of my readers will find it impossibly cryptic. Allow me to clarify.

Eκκλησία (which I will hereafter transliterate into English as “Ekklesia”) is a Greek New Testament reading group which meets weekly at Augustana College, Rock Island during the school year. The group is comprised of instructors from the Classics and Religion departments, students, clergy and various other members of the community. The group is interdisciplinary and interdenominational. Through the years, the membership has included inerrantists and agnostics and people in the middle, like me.

We have read the Johannine literature, the book of Philippians, the Q parallels from Mathew and Luke, and most recently, in a departure from the New Testament, the early Christian book called the Didache. In the fall, we plan to begin reading the Acts of the Apostles.

Our procedure is this: We take turns reading a sentence or so from the text in Greek. The reader then translates the sentence. Next we discuss it, paying attention to grammar, textual variants, and, of course, the meaning of the text. Some members of the group do not read Greek, but come for the discussions.

The group is neither as dull nor as disputatious as you might imagine. In fact, we laugh a lot. The subtitle of this post is a pun that Ekklesia has chuckled over. The Greek word μαργαρίτας (which is transliterated “margaritas”) means “pearls.” The word is found in Matthew 7:6, where Jesus says, “do not throw your pearls before swine.” I like to translate it as “Don’t give margaritas to pigs.”

Okay. Reading that over I realize that it is Greek nerd humor. What can I say? It makes me laugh.

Ekklesia has come to be an important part of my life. So much so that I drive 140 miles round trip each week to attend.

Last year, one of the students, a politically conservative non-Greek reader from an inerrantist tradition, had other obligations that kept her from attending for a school term. When she came back, she told me that she had missed the group. She said, “I really didn’t do anything spiritual last term.” I would not have expected her to use the word “spiritual” to describe Ekklesia, but it is spiritual.

The word “Ekklesia” means something like “assembly.” It is usually translated into English as “church.” My friend the Classicist has his own blog called Penned House, in which he discusses another of our common interests, pens and inks. Read it here. I borrowed the picture of the drunk pig from Linzi at deviantart.com. To see it in its original context, click here.

Children And PhDs

2011-06-15T07:07:00.000-07:00

AND THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE

I was re-posted again over at Living Lutheran. This time they picked up my post titled “Reading Someone Else’s Mail” in which I described the letters of St. Paul as high context documents.

A reader who calls himself “Chemnitz” replied. I am assuming that Chemnitz is male. I am further assuming that he took the name Chemnitz from the Lutheran theologian Martin Chemnitz (1522 - 1586). At any rate, the modern day Chemnitz wrote:

“Luther said that scripture is so simple a child can understand it. This article seems to say that only experts -- those with the correect [sic] gnosis (knowledge) --can interpret the Bible. If Paul was the author, that might be true. But the Holy Spirit is the real author, and He does not hide anything from us necessary for our salvation.”

When we were children, my brother and I were given wooden plaques by our Sunday School teacher. I honestly don’t remember what mine looked like. My brother’s had a picture of a fluffy white kitten chasing a butterfly and bore the inscription “God is Love.” The words are from 1 John 4:8. I loved that plaque. Its message was formative to my understanding of God.

I am currently reading Evolving in Monkey Town, by Rachel Held Evans. The book is breezily written and easily read. It is humorous and thoughtful by turns. I’m enjoying it. On page 27, Evans writes:

“I cannot remember a time when I didn’t know about Jesus. Stories of his dividing the fishes and loaves, calming the stormy sea, and riding the donkey into Jerusalem were as familiar to me growing up as Jack and the Beanstalk and Cinderella. I learned them from my parents and from pretty Sunday school teachers who smelled like peppermint and let me call them by their first names. They were more than stories really. They were grand narratives that flowed like streams into my own story, creating the currents that would move me forward and give me direction in life.”

So, Chemnitz is at least partly right. Portions of the Scripture are so clear and simple that even young children can understand them. I think that it takes a certain maturity of mind to comprehend Paul’s letter to the Romans or the book of Hebrews, but parts of the Bible are clear enough even for children. Thank God.

Then again, I think that Chemnitz has misunderstood my original post. I never said, nor did I mean to intimate, that only experts can interpret the Bible. (The term “gnosis” here is both loaded and inaccurate. I am not a gnostic.) I did not say, nor do I believe that the things necessary for our salvation are hidden from us.

My point was that some parts of the Bible, and in particular some parts of the letters of Paul are closed to us. For example, in Philippians 4:2-3, Paul writes:

“I urge Euodia and I urge Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you also, my loyal companion, help these women, for they have struggled beside me in the work of the gospel, together with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life.”

Who were Euodia and Syntyche? What was the nature of their disagreement? Paul could assume that his first readers knew. Today, no one can say, not an expert with special “gnosis”, nor even a precocious child. This is a simple example of Paul’s letters being high context documents. Because many of the details of Paul’s writings are lost to us, I maintain that we should hold our interpretations lightly.

Though I don’t know the source for Chemnitz’s assertion that Luther said Scripture was clear enough for children to understand, I will take it at face value. I will also point out that Martin Luther was a doctor of biblical theology. He studied the Scriptures in great depth and sometimes struggled to understand them. He was also known, occasionally, to overstate his case.

I will also say that Lutherans have always required their clergy to be educated, at least partly so that they can explain the Scriptures clearly. This is not some special “gnosis.” It is education to be shared.

Finally, while it may not take an expert to understand the Bible, I have benefited many times over from sitting at the feet of those who do have expertise in Scriptural studies. I have found that those with PhDs are often the most cautious in their pronouncements about the Bible, the most tentative in their conclusions, the most careful to understand the Scriptures in their context, and the first to say “I don’t know.”

Scripture is quoted from the New Revised Standard Version.The picture of the young Jesus among the Doctors is by Rembrandt.

Harold Camping Had A Stroke

2011-06-13T19:02:00.000-07:00

AND I FEEL BADLY ABOUT IT

Harold Camping is an old man. As of this writing he is a few months short of his ninetieth birthday.

Harold Camping has been the subject of quite a few of my recent blogposts. He is famous for predicting the date of the rapture. First, he said that it might be in 1994. It wasn’t. Then told us that the Bible “guaranteed” that the rapture would happen on May 21, 2011. He was wrong again. Now he says that the rapture and the end of the world will both occur on October 21, 2011.

He will be wrong again, and he will be wrong for the same reasons that he was wrong twice before.

There will be no rapture. Ever. The doctrine of the rapture is based on a convoluted and de-contextualized reading of a few verses of the Bible. It was not what the writers of Scripture intended. It is not a part of the historic Christian faith.

The world will not end on October 21 because Harold Camping reads the Bible in strange, idiosyncratic and nonsensical ways.

I have said that when Harold Camping’s 1994 prediction fell through, he set the date for 2011, never expecting to live to see the day. It was a joke about Camping’s age. It was not a funny joke.

I give Harold Camping this much credit. I believe that he is sincere. He is wrong, but he is not lying. I do not think that Camping is fraudulent, venal or crass. He is just mistaken.

He also has talents for persuasion and publicity. He managed to get his bizarre biblical interpretation widely known.

The news yesterday announced that Harold Camping has had a stroke. His speech is affected. Somehow I feel badly about that. Maybe it is because I made fun of his age. Maybe it’s because I owe a sudden spike in this blog’s popularity to my posts about Camping. Maybe it’s just because he is a fellow, flawed human being whom God loves.

I hope that no one is listening to Harold Camping’s goofy teachings about the Bible and the end of the world anymore. I also hope--no, I pray--for Harold Camping’s recovery.

A CBS News story about Camping's stroke, and the source of the photograph accompanying this post can be found here.

Contemplating Camping's mortality, and my own, puts me in mind of Psalm 103:14-18, quoted from the New Revised Standard Version:

The Lord knows how we were made;
     he remembers that we are dust.
As for mortals, their days are like grass;
     they flourish like a flower of the field;
     for the wind passes over it, and it is gone,
        and its place knows it no more.
But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting
     on those who fear him,
     and his righteousness to children's children,
      to those who keep his covenant
          and remember to do his commandments.

What The Word "Biblical" Means

2011-06-06T19:15:00.000-07:00

THE BIBLE AS I INTERPRET IT SUPPORTS WHAT I SAY OR DO

It was a conversation with a pastor of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) that convinced me, years ago, that the word “biblical” is not helpful. It does not foster an open exchange of ideas. In fact, the use of that one word, and its antonym “unbiblical,” shuts down meaningful conversation. As James McGrath put it:

"I’d much prefer that we jettison the term 'Biblical' in its popular usage, since it is at best meaningless and at worst deceitfully misleading."

The LCMS pastor whom I mentioned, repeatedly and insistently referred to “the biblical practice of close Communion.” Close, or “closed” Communion means that a Missouri Synod pastor will not give Communion to someone who is not known to be in doctrinal agreement with their synod. This practice is based largely on the Apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.”

According to the LCMS’s interpretation, “discerning the body” means acknowledging the real presence of Christ in the bread of Communion. My Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) also teaches the real presence of Christ in the elements of Communion, but we have a much more open Communion practice.

In his explanation to the eighth Commandment in the Small Catechism, Martin Luther taught that Christians should explain their neighbors’ actions “in the kindest way.” Following this instruction, I will say that the LCMS policy shows a genuine concern for the Sacrament and for the eternal fate of those who receive it.

I disagree, however, with the idea that the practice of closed Communion is biblical. In fact, I would argue that the idea of closed Communion is the exact opposite of what the Apostle Paul had in mind when he wrote to the church at Corinth. As always, context is key.

It is interesting to note that 1 Corinthians provides the only evidence we have that the Apostle Paul’s churches practiced a form of the Eucharist (Holy Communion). The only reason that Paul wrote to the Corinthians about the Eucharist is that there were problems in the way they practiced it.

1 Corinthians is a high context document. Paul and his first readers shared details of knowledge that are not available to us. It seems clear that their practice of Communion was not identical to the practices of twenty-first century American Lutherans. It would appear that the Corinthian Eucharist took place in the context of a full meal in which the entire community partook. Some of the Corinthians were hogging food and getting drunk while others went hungry (1 Cor. 11:21). This may have reflected the common practice in first century Roman society where a host provided the most honorable guests with the best and most plentiful foods, while “B-list” guests were provided with lesser quantities of inferior food and drink. At any rate, Paul objected, saying that the Corinthian meal was not “the Lord’s Supper.” (1 Cor. 11:20).

In every other context in which Paul speaks of “the body of Christ,” he means the Church, that is, the assembly of believers (See, e.g. 1 Cor. 12:27). In 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Paul makes a connection between the Eucharistic bread, which Christ called “my body,” and the body of believers who partake of it.

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”

I am convinced that when Paul talks about “discerning the body” he is referring to the body of believers. That some Corinthians were selfishly disregarding, disrespecting and ignoring the needs of other believers at their Eucharistic meal meant that they were, in Paul’s terms, eating and drinking “judgment against themselves.”

The issue in Corinth was not about recognizing the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament. It was about some believers failing to recognize other believers as fully members of the Body of Christ which is the Church. At least, that is how I see it. I leave it to you, my reader to decide for yourself whether I am right. But if I am right, then the practice of closed Communion is in fact the opposite of what the Apostle Paul advocated, because in closed Communion one part of the Body of Christ denies access to the Lord’s table to another part of that same Body.

Returning to my original point, the use of the word “biblical” is not helpful. By speaking of the “biblical practice of close Communion” my LCMS interlocutor was claiming for his position a high ground that did not exist. The Bible nowhere says “Thou shalt practice close Communion.” As with anyone who uses the word “biblical” to describe their doctrine or practice, what he meant was “the Bible as I interpret it supports what I say or do.”

And that is not helpful.

Scripture quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version. I "borrowed" the graphic from the Facebook page of something called the "Closed Communion Underground Supper Club." I can't vouch for the club or its members, but I like the graphic!

Good Quote

2011-06-06T11:54:00.000-07:00

FROM DR. DAVID LOSE

David J. Lose is the Marbury E. Anderson Chair for Biblical Preaching at Luther Seminary. He says succinctly what I believe:

"Claims that the Bible is 'inerrant' or 'infallible' probably say more about the need of the persons making those claims to try to prove their faith than they do about the Bible itself. The Bible, keep in mind, is fundamentally a collection of the confessions of faith of people over the centuries who have experienced God in a particular way and seek to give voice to their faith. But faith, as the Letter to the Hebrews says, is 'the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen' (11:1). You can confess your faith, you can give good reasons for your faith, and you can allow your faith to shape your life. But you cannot prove your faith (or it is no longer faith!). When we try to prove that the Bible is true by ascribing to it a divine status that it doesn’t claim itself, we risk fundamentally misunderstanding the nature and purpose of the Bible."

Read the entire article here.

Marc Chagall's painting of Moses accompanies this post just because I like it. I found the image here.

Biblical? Unbiblical?

2011-06-03T19:18:00.000-07:00

UNHELPFUL, MEANINGLESS, MISLEADING TERMS

In my last post, as elsewhere in this blog, I said that "'unbiblical' is not a helpful term." Over at his blog, Exploring Our Matrix, Dr. James McGrath makes the point better than I could hope to. He writes:

"I’d much prefer that we jettison the term 'Biblical' in its popular usage, since it is at best meaningless and at worst deceitfully misleading."

Please go immediately to Dr. McGrath's blog and read this post. Enjoy the clever cartoons that illustrate it and follow some, if not all, of the links.

The lovely photograph of a 1611 King James Bible was found on this website. You can actually buy it, and any number of other antique Bibles there...if you can afford them!

Osama bin Laden, Mother Teresa and Harold Camping

2011-06-01T19:52:00.000-07:00

THEOLOGY HAS CONSEQUENCES

What we believe about God bears fruit in the way we live our lives and how we treat other people. Take as an extreme example Osama bin Laden and Mother Teresa. Both were passionate believers. They had radically different visions of what God is like. Each lived and acted in ways consistent with their vision of God.

I know that there is something of a chicken-and-egg question here. It might be appropriate to ask whether one’s idea of God is shaped by one’s personality. Do our actions and our theologies arise from a common source? I have no way to answer that. I think it is enough, for now, to recognize that our vision of God generally accords with the way we live and behave. Theology has consequences.

I have read other blogs dealing with Harold Camping’s failed prediction that the “Rapture” would occur on May 21, a date that he has now revised to October 21, 2011. Comments on those blogs sometimes warn against lumping all Rapture believers together with Mr. Camping. Fair enough. Harold Camping has his own kind of kookiness. Most rapture believers distance themselves from his eccentric, numerological interpretations of the Bible. Most rapture believers object to setting a specific date for the Rapture or the end of the ages. Most rapture believers take Jesus at his word, “no one knows the hour or the day.”

So, let me be clear that I disagree not only with Harold Camping, but with the doctrine of the Rapture in general.

I hesitate to call belief in the Rapture “unbiblical” for two reasons. First, “unbiblical” is not a helpful term. Second, the doctrine of the Rapture is derived (or at least proof-texted) from the Bible. Perhaps it is best to say that the doctrine of the Rapture is not what the writers of Scripture intended, nor is it what their original audience understood. The Rapture is a thoroughly modern doctrine with its origins somewhere around the year 1800 C.E.

My main objection to the doctrine of the Rapture, however, is the fruit that it bears. A few days ago I mentioned A Thief in the Night, a cheesy old Rapture movie from 1972, to a friend. She said, “That movie scared the heck out of me.” The doctrine of the Rapture frightens people. I do not think that a spirituality based in fear is healthy.

The doctrine of the Rapture also leads to divisiveness and triumphalism. It creates a “we’re going to heaven and you’re not” mentality.

Because the doctrine of the Rapture places all of a believer’s hope in the next life, it leads to a disregard for this life. It paints the world--which God made and which God loves--as an evil place to be escaped. It creates disdain for God’s good creation.

If you have not seen it yet, Kyle Roberts and Adam Rao have an excellent piece in the Washington post about the consequences of Rapture theology. Read it here.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

2011-05-25T08:48:00.000-07:00

CONTEXT IS KEY

I used Jan Luyken’s illustration of the Rapture in connection with this post. It is meant to illustrate Matthew 24:40. That verse and the one that follows it are often used to support the doctrine of the Rapture, the idea that Jesus will take the righteous out of the world before subjecting the wicked to a time of tribulation.

⁴⁰Then two men shall be in the field, the one is received, and the one is left; ⁴¹two women shall be grinding in the mill, one is received, and one is left.

Luyken’s illustration shows an angel taking a blessed field hand off to heaven while his unrighteous partner falls to his knees, covering his face in misery. So what is wrong with the picture?

These verses can only be used to support the doctrine of the Rapture if they are taken out of context. Reading them in context, we find that it is not those taken who are blessed, but those who are left. Matthew 24:37-39, the verses immediately preceding these:

³⁷and as the days of Noah--so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man; ³⁸for as they were, in the days before the flood, eating, and drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage, till the day Noah entered into the ark, ³⁹and they did not know till the flood came and took all away; so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man. (Emphasis added).

I have quoted these verses from Young’s Literal Translation, not because I have any great fondness for that version, but because, in this case, it preserves the fact that “taken” in verses 4-41 and “took...away” in verse 39 are forms of the same verb. In Noah’s case, those “taken” were the wicked who drowned. Only by reading verses 40-41 apart from their immediate context can one conclude that the ones “taken” are the blessed!

Historical context also argues against the idea that this passage describes a “rapture” of the righteous. In her excellent book The Rapture Exposed, Barbara Rossing reminds us that Jesus preached in Palestine during Roman occupation. When the Roman troops rode into town and took some people away, it was those “left behind” who were the fortunate ones.

Lessons Unlearned

2011-05-24T18:43:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I reflected on some of the lessons that we all should have learned from Harold Camping's failed rapture prediction. The first lesson was that setting dates for Jesus' return is a waste of time. Harold Camping himself doesn't seem to have learned that lesson.

Camping's former claim was that the rapture would occur on May 21 and the end of the world would come on October 21, 2011. He now says that his math was right but his interpretation was wrong. The rapture and the end of the world will both take place on October 21. He has been wrong twice before. He is wrong again. I hope that no one is listening to him anymore.

Someone calling himself "Max" submitted a comment on that last post. I have chosen not to publish the comment largely because I think it constitutes spam for a website promoting a different end of the world scenario. Sorry, Max. My blog; my rules.

Max is another who did not learn that date-setting is a waste of time. He's promoting the notion that the world will end on December 21, 2012.

Sigh.

Among the proofs adduced for this date are the fact that an ancient Mayan calendar ends on 12/21/12. I have read that the Mayan calendar is cyclical. It does not end on 12/21/12. It starts over.

I have a calendar on my wall right now that ends on December 31, 2011. I don't for a second think that 12/31/11 will be the end of the world. It will just be time to get a new calendar.

The picture came from wiki. Where else?

Lessons from Harold Camping's Rapture Fiasco

2011-05-23T13:49:00.000-07:00

WHAT WE LEARNED; WHAT WE SHOULD LEARN

May 21, 2011 has come and gone without apocalyptic event. This leaves Radio Preacher and Doomsday Prophet Harold Camping "flabbergasted." It affords the rest of us an opportunity to ask "What lessons do I take away from this?" Let me suggest a few:

We all ought to learn that Date-setting and speculating about the Apocalypse is a waste of time and money. Some of Camping's followers have apparently been left destitute because they took the man at his word. In the meantime the money and work-hours poured into spreading Camping's false message might have been used to do some real good in the world--feeding the hungry, healing the sick, comforting the afflicted. You know, the stuff Jesus' followers should be doing. And while I think that Camping's failed predictions should warn us all off of setting dates for the judgment day ever again, I doubt that we will learn this lesson. After all, we didn't learn it in 1844, 1992, 1994, 1998, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Judy Henske sings it: "You learn from history, you learn nothing from history."

We should also learn that saying "the Bible guarantees it" doesn't make a thing true. Camping assured us that the Bible said that there is a rapture, and that it would occur on May 21, 2011. Of course, the Bible says no such thing. It was Harold Camping's interpretation of the Bible that said this. In this case, the Bible was not wrong. Camping was.

I've said several times in these blogposts that the most rigorous logic will yield false conclusions if it begins from false premises. Harold Camping's predictions had a sort of mathematical logic that may have seemed convincing, but he started with false notions about the Bible and how it works.

We ought to learn that there is a difference between believing and knowing. Let me quote Dr. James McGrath,

"The feeling of certainty is easy to acquire. Actually being right is much harder to accomplish, and having good reasons for feeling confident that you are right is harder still."

We are all well served by a healthy sense of doubt concerning even our own most closely cherished beliefs.

Finally, I have learned that using the right search terms in the title of a blog post can yield big results. This blog usually gets a dozen or so hits each day. On Friday, May 20, it was viewed 676 times. On Saturday, May 21, it scored 873 hits. Most of that traffic went to a post titled "The Rapture Will Not Happen May 21, 2011." For certain queries, that post was the first result for a Google search. Perhaps the more significant take-away from my sudden traffic surge would be: The apocalypse is big business.

The quote about learning from history was from the song "Master of Love" on Judy Henske's brilliant 1999 album Loose in the World. I think maybe God didn't end the world in 1998 so that the album could be made. The picture of the billboard came from this website.

May 21, 2011

2011-05-21T08:12:00.000-07:00

JUDGMENT DAY

The cat woke me up at 2:30 a.m. I gave him a fistful of kibble and listened to the radio for about 3 minutes. There was no news of Judgment Day. I went back to sleep.

At 4:15 a.m. I heard a strange noise in the kitchen. Going to investigate, I found a "thief in the night" at work. The cat was on the counter trying to get into a bag of sandwich rolls. There were no other signs of apocalypse. I threw the cat off the counter, put the bread in a cupboard and went back to bed.

When I awoke this morning, there were birds singing outside my window. I checked the weather radar. It shows storms heading this way. Spring storms, not apocalyptic storms.

There was no worldwide earthquake last night. No rapture. The judgment is in: Harold Camping was wrong.

I wanted to see what Family Radio, Camping's outfit, had to say about this. As of this posting, their website is down.

Google "Thief in the night" and you find all kinds of images, including the one I took from this website.

There Will Be No Rapture Tonight

2011-05-20T18:41:00.000-07:00

GET A GOOD NIGHT'S SLEEP

I am writing this post on Friday, May 20, at about 8:00 p.m. local time which, if I'm not mistaken, makes it about 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, May 21 at the international date line. In a little less than 4 hours, according to Harold Camping, the rapture will begin. A huge earthquake will start moving east, crossing each time zone at 6:00 p.m. standard time, leaving open graves in its wake. The righteous dead will be raised and taken to heaven. The corpses of the unrighteous will be left exposed. The righteous living will be taken from this world directly into heaven. The rest of us will be "left behind" to face horrible tribulations.

I will be asleep.

I fully expect to wake up in the morning to find that none of Mr. Camping's predictions have come true. I don't believe in the rapture.

The doctrine of the rapture is based in a faulty reading of Scripture. Those who believe the doctrine live either in fear or false hope. It encourages speculations like those of Harold Camping. It distracts from the real and vital work that Christians should be about in this world.

I've mentioned the Scripture Principle ("Scripture interprets Scripture) several times in these blog posts. The Scripture Principle means that we should not be troubled by the difficult parts of the Bible. Rather we should cling to those that are clear.

If you, my reader, are worried by Harold Camping's strange interpretations of parts of the Bible that are not clear to you, cling instead to this:

Psalm 46:1-11
¹ God is our refuge and strength,
     a very present help in trouble.
² Therefore we will not fear,
     though the earth should change,
     though the mountains shake
        in the heart of the sea;
³ though its waters roar and foam,
     though the mountains tremble with its tumult.
                  Selah
⁴ There is a river whose streams
      make glad the city of God,
      the holy habitation of the Most High.
⁵ God is in the midst of the city;
     it shall not be moved;
         God will help it when the morning dawns.
⁶ The nations are in an uproar, the kingdoms totter;
        he utters his voice, the earth melts.
⁷ The Lord of hosts is with us;
     the God of Jacob is our refuge.
               Selah
⁸ Come, behold the works of the Lord;
     see what desolations he has brought on the earth.
⁹ He makes wars cease to the end of the earth;
     he breaks the bow, and shatters the spear;
    he burns the shields with fire.
¹⁰ "Be still, and know that I am God!
     I am exalted among the nations,
          I am exalted in the earth."
¹¹ The Lord of hosts is with us;
      the God of Jacob is our refuge.
               Selah

Good night and God bless you.

Scripture quotation is from the New Revised Standard Version. I found the picture of the cross here.

Rachel Held Evans's Kind of Kookiness

2011-05-20T14:26:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I blogged about Harold Camping's kookiness and my own. Author, Speaker, Blogger Rachel Held Evans makes much the same point on her own blog, but she does so much more eloquently:

"Like it or not, Harold Camping and his followers make us laugh because we see a small piece of our faith in theirs. They are exaggerated caricatures of ourselves.

We too are guilty of projecting onto God our expectations and desires.

We too can get overconfident in our interpretations of the Bible.

We too expect God to judge the way we think he should judge, act when we think he should act, be who we think he should be.

And, you gotta admit, there’s a chance that we too might be absolutely, devastatingly, irrecoverably wrong."

Read the whole thing here.

The graphic came from Rachel Held Evans's website.

Harold Camping's Kind of Kookiness

2011-05-19T18:45:00.000-07:00

AND MY KIND OF KOOKINESS

I have a friend who was raised in the Roman Catholic faith. As an adult, he spent some time living among Mormons. He says, "Observing their kind of kookiness made me face up to my own kind of kookiness."

As May 21 has grown closer, I have been blogging about and critiquing Harold Camping. It has never been my intent to mock Mr. Camping and his followers. I hope that nothing I have written here has been taken that way. There are plenty of others willing to mock Camping. I don't see the point. Mockery only causes hard feelings and alienation.

Until I have convincing proof to the contrary, I will assume that Mr. Camping is sincere in his beliefs. I believe that he is mistaken, but I will concede that he is sincere. I do not want others mocking my sincere beliefs, so, in keeping with the "Golden Rule" I try to treat Camping as I wish to be treated by those who disagree with me.

Besides, I know well that my own kind of kookiness is just as easily mocked as Camping's.

Which brings me to a link: Amy Frykholm has a short blog post about feeling that she does not belong at a "post rapture party." Read it here.

And if you are interested in knowing more about Harold Camping's beliefs, Jason Boyett has a longer, but easy to read post: 21 Things You Should Know About Harold Camping.

I found both of these links at James McGrath's generally excellent blog Exploring Our Matrix.

If you would like a reference for the Golden Rule cited above, you can use Stephanus's verse numbers to find it at Luke 6:31.

Moby Dick, John Nelson Darby, Harold Camping

2011-05-18T18:41:00.000-07:00

AND WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE THIS STUFF ANYWAY?

When I think about Harold Camping’s prediction that this Saturday, May 21, will be “Judgment Day,” I cannot help but wonder how anyone could be convinced of its truth. Of course, some people will believe anything, and having a media presence like Camping’s “Family Radio” somehow lends weight to one’s words. It may be more significant though, to notice that a lot of what Camping says sounds familiar. Camping takes ideas from the orthodox mainstream of Christianity and presses them to an extreme.

A friend of mine says that any truth taken to the extreme becomes heresy.

Robert Estienne gave us a handy way to navigate around the Bible when he added verse numbers to the New Testament. Harold Camping uses those numbers to mine the Scriptures for verses which, divorced from their meaningful context, can be made to mean what he believes.

Martin Luther, and his fellow reformers gave us a high view of the authority of Scripture. Camping makes hay of this claiming that “every Word” of the Bible “was from the mouth of God.” He can then go rooting around for coded messages hidden in the Scriptures.

That coded messages can be found in the text of Moby Dick does not deter Camping and his ilk.

Camping also builds on a thread of apocalypticism that all Christians have inherited from Jesus himself, from the Apostle Paul and, to a greater or lesser degree, from all the writers of the New Testament. Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. Paul believed that Jesus’ return was imminent. Later in the New Testament period, writers began to back off on their end times fervor and in writings like 1 and 2 Timothy, we can see the nascent Church beginning to trench in for the long haul. This was the period of what Norman Perrin called “emergent catholicism.” Even in this later time, there was an expectation of the end.

Still, neither Jesus nor any of the writers of the New Testament dared to set a date for “Judgment Day”

Other influences on Camping include John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) “the father of dispensationalism” who preached that history was divided into a series of time periods called “dispensations.” In each dispensation God related to creation in a different way. When Camping says that “the Church age” has ended. He is using language borrowed from Darby. Darby either invented or popularized the idea of the “rapture” which is, of course, the event that Camping predicts for May 21. Darby’s ideas, though outside the historic mainstream of Christian thought, have seeped into our American cultural consciousness.

These are just some of the precedents that give Camping’s message an aura of familiarity and, I think, make his strange biblical interpretations and outlandish predictions seem more credible to some people. In every instance--even in the case of John Nelson Darby’s teaching--Camping has taken his forebear’s ideas to eccentric extremes.

The picture of Moby Dick came from this website and I found the photo of John Nelson Darby here.

I have heard that, as the day approaches, some of Camping’s followers are backing off on their claim that the rapture will be May 21. Apparently they are claiming that it will be sometime between May 21 and October 21, and may be even further delayed because of their prayers for the “unsaved church.” So much for “the Bible guarantees it.” Can anyone confirm this?

The Rapture Will Not Happen May 21, 2011

2011-05-17T19:06:00.000-07:00

BECAUSE THE RAPTURE WILL NOT HAPPEN AT ALL

We shook hands as we were introduced. “And this is Pastor Brant.” His big fist engulfed my hand. “Pastor,” he said, not letting go, “do you believe in the Rapture of the Church?” It was a test. I was about to fail.

The Rapture is that strange doctrine, which, in its most widely held variation, says that before the end of the ages Jesus will come partway down from heaven. Hovering above the earth, he will call all true believers to himself. They will caught up together in the air with Jesus who will take them back up into heaven. The rest of humanity will be “left behind” to suffer a period--usually seven years--of horrible tribulation.

In some sectors of Christianity, belief in the Rapture is considered a mark of orthodoxy.

Radio preacher Harold Camping has made the news by claiming that the Rapture will occur next Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. In Camping’s version Jesus will apparently hover in earth orbit rapturing the faithful to himself in each successive time zone as intense earthquakes follow in his wake. The subsequent tribulation will be briefer than in most Apocalyptic systems: a mere five months. On October 21, 2011, as Camping tells it, the earth will cease to exist.

While Camping is convinced that the Rapture will occur on May 21 (“The Bible guarantees it,” he says.) I am equally convinced that it will not. You see, I don’t believe in the Rapture.

The doctrine of the Rapture is not a part of the historic teaching of the Church. It is an innovation, thought up some time in the late 18th or early 19th century. It is patchwork doctrine stitched together from disparate Bible verses combined in ways that their original authors would not recognize. Those verses, each taken in its own context, can be interpreted in other ways and for most of Christian history, they were. Some Christians today make belief in the Rapture a test of orthodoxy, but it was not a part of the faith of Jesus, his disciples, the Apostle Paul, the Church Fathers, the Reformers or anyone else before about the year 1800.

Most of all, I do not believe in the Rapture because it is directly counter to what Jesus taught. He never said that he would spare his followers from tribulation. On the contrary, he warned his would-be disciples to count the cost of following him. He told them to take up crosses. He promised them persecutions, not escapism.

I found Jan Luyken's illustration of the Rapture at wikipedia.

I Will Never Own A Harold Camping Bobble Head

2011-05-16T18:30:00.000-07:00

IN WHICH WE EXAMINE SOME OF THE WAYS THAT HAROLD CAMPING HAS PERVERTED THE INSIGHTS OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER

I’m a big Martin Luther fanboy. I admit it. I even have a Martin Luther bobblehead and a Martin Luther beer stein. Dr. Luther was a history-changing spiritual genius.

He was also a rather problematic personality and a product of his times. When Luther got things wrong, he got things spectacularly wrong. His stance in the Peasants’ War, for instance, or his advice to would-be polygamist Philip of Hesse. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Then there were the hateful, hurtful things that Luther said about the Jews. Every responsible Lutheran church body has publicly repudiated Luther’s statements about the Jews.

Luther, however, never claimed to be anything other than “saint and sinner.” In that way, I relate to him. Sometimes I, too, get things spectacularly wrong. So in spite of his clay feet, I can admire Martin Luther for his theological and spiritual brilliance, and for the courage of his conscience. Luther’s understanding of justification by grace through faith is the cornerstone of Lutheran theology and the bedrock of my own understanding of God.

So, it chagrins me to say that, like Robertus Stephanus, Martin Luther (and his fellow reformers) in some ways set precedent for the bizarre apocalyptic speculations of Harold Camping.

Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura (“Scripture Alone”) meant that the Bible was the sole source and norm of Christian doctrine. This effectively got Luther out from under the thumb of the Pope. Harold Camping has taken the idea of biblical authority to an extreme that Luther would never have recognized or countenanced:

“At Family Radio,” according to Camping’s website, “we emphatically teach that the whole Bible is the Word of God. We believe that, in the original languages in which the Bible was written, every Word was from the mouth of God, and consequently, is never to be altered and must be obeyed. The Bible alone, and in its entirety, is the Word of God.”

Luther’s vernacular translation of the Bible took the Scriptures out of the hands of ecclesiastical “experts” and made them the possession of every Christian. This is a good thing. I think that Luther fully expected the people to read their Bibles with an understanding of sound, historic Christian doctrine as taught in the community of the Church. An unfortunate consequence of all this is that someone like Camping can take the Bible, unmoor it from good doctrine, and claim its authority for the most outlandish and idiosyncratic ideas.

Then there is the Scripture principle, “Scripture interprets Scripture.” By this Luther meant that the troubling parts of the Bible are to be understood in light of the parts that are clear. The story of Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac should be understood in the light of the cross of Christ. The accounts of genocide in the Old Testament should be tempered by 1 John’s statement that “God is love.” Camping and company have taken the idea that “Scripture interprets Scripture” to mean that odd bits of the Bible can be grafted together to create new meanings that the original writers never intended.

I hardly have to say that Luther would not have approved of the strange lengths to which Camping has taken some of his teachings. In fact, I believe the good doctor would have had some intemperate words for Camping’s brand of biblical interpretation.

If you would like to be a Martin Luther fanboy or fangirl, you can get your own Luther bobblehead from OldLutheran.com

The beer stein, which I also purchased from Old Lutheran is based on this anecdote from Roland Bainton’s classic Luther biography Here I Stand:

“A word may be said at this point also about Luther's drinking. He imbibed and took some pride in his capacity. He had a mug around which were three rings. The first he said represented the Ten Commandments, the second the Apostles' Creed, and the third the Lord's Prayer Luther was highly amused that he was able to drain the glass of wine through the Lord's Prayer, whereas his friend Agricola could not get beyond the Ten Commandments. But Luther is not recorded ever to have exceeded a state of hilarity.”

A Rabbi, A French Printer and Harold Camping....

2011-05-15T18:49:00.000-07:00

OR, WHAT DOES ROBERT ESTIENNE HAVE TO DO WITH AMERICA’S FAVORITE DOOMSDAY PROPHET?

Harold Camping is the radio preacher who has predicted that all true Christians will be raptured out of the world next Saturday, May 21, 2011. His interpretations of the Bible are idiosyncratic to say the least, but they are not unprecedented. Guys like Camping don’t arise out of nowhere.

The elaborately bearded gentleman pictured here is one Robert Estienne (1503-1559) whose name is often latinized to Robertus Stephanus. Stephanus was a classical scholar and printer of books. He published four editions of the Greek New Testament. The fourth of which, published in 1551, contained an innovation that concerns us here: verse numbers.

Stephanus was not actually the first person to divide the New Testament into numbered verses, but his system of numbering was the one that caught on. It is still used in our modern New Testaments. The Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament) uses an even older numbering system which is attributed to Rabbi Isaac Nathan ben Kolonymus, who employed it in a concordance published in 1523.

Verse numbers are immensely helpful for students of the Bible. They give us an easy way to navigate through the Scriptures. They make it possible for persons using different versions of the Bible to find the same spot in reading. For this we owe Stephanus and Rabbi b. Kolonymus a debt of gratitude.

Useful as they are, Stephanus’s verse numbers are sometimes strange. For example, he occasionally divided sentences at odd places. Legend (well, joke really) has it that he marked out his verse numbers while riding on horseback. Occasionally the horse would stumble and Stephanus would drop the pen at a random spot on the page. My Greek New Testament reading group has cursed Stephanus’ horse more than once.

The worst thing about verse numbers is that they make the Bible seem to be a collection of verses. Verse numbers break up sustained thoughts. Verse numbers make it seem that every verse is of equal weight and importance. They make it possible to take a fragment of a thought from Jeremiah and combine it with a completely unrelated verse from James as if it made sense to do so.

And this is the stock in trade of Harold Camping and others of his ilk.

There is an old joke about a woman who opened her Bible to a random verse each day to learn God’s will for her life. One day she opened to Matthew 27:5, “ [Judas] went out and hanged himself.” Thinking there must be a mistake she tried again and found Luke 10:37, “Go and do likewise.”

I found the picture of Robert Estienne here.

My favorite Bible verse to read out of context is 1 Chronicles 1:25. Know it from memory? Anyone?

Reading Someone Else’s Mail

2011-05-09T17:18:00.000-07:00

PAUL’S EPISTLES ARE HIGH CONTEXT DOCUMENTS

If you found this letter tucked away in the pages of an old Bible, what would you make of it?

12/3

Dear Pat,

Do you remember that place by the lake--the one we visited back when Sam was in so much trouble? I visited it again last week. It hasn’t changed a bit, except that the old German woman is gone, of course.

Being there made me think of you. The place seemed smaller, somehow, and lonelier.

As ever,

Jim

Is Pat male or female? What is Pat’s relationship to Jim? What kind of trouble was Sam in? Was it legal, financial, medical? When was this letter written? Where was Jim when he wrote it? Where was Pat? What clues does the letter furnish that might help answer any of these questions? What more information might you need?

This letter is what scholars call a “high context” document. It assumes a great deal of shared knowledge between author and reader. Outsiders can speculate about the letter’s meaning, but, without more information, they can not draw many firm conclusions.

There are high context letters like this one tucked away in the pages of every Christian Bible. They are the Epistles of Paul. When we read Paul’s letters we are outsiders. Paul and his intended audience had a pre-established relationship. They shared some common history and common knowledge that are not spelled out in detail. Sometimes Paul’s meaning may be clear to us, but very often we are left to speculate.

When we read the letters of Paul, we are reading someone else’s mail. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t read Paul’s letters. Nor does it mean that we can draw no meaning from them. It does mean, however, that we should recognize that we are often left to speculate about the Apostle's meaning, and we should always be a little hesitant to draw firm conclusions.

A "low context" document is one that provides a lot of the information required to understand it. Think of a newspaper story. The 16th c. painting of St. Paul writing a letter to someone else was found here.

Happy Birthday, King James Bible

2011-05-02T12:51:00.000-07:00

YOU DON'T LOOK A DAY OVER 300!

Today marks the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version of the Bible. The KJV was not the first English translation of the Bible, nor is it the best, but it is, beyond question, the most influential.

Not the First. Large portions of the Bible had been translated into Old English as early as the 7th century. John Wycliffe published two different versions of the complete Bible in English in the 14th century. When King James I ascended to the throne of England in 1603, he authorized the translation that is now commonly called after his name. Published in 1611, the KJV was intended to replace the Bishops’ Bible, then in use in the Church of England. It was also hoped that the new translation would supplant the Geneva Bible, then popular among English Protestants. The Geneva Bible, so-called for the city in which it was printed, featured footnotes of a Calvinist, Puritan, anti-ecclesial and anti-monarchical bent. The King James Version was authorized for largely political reasons.

Not the Best. Despite the extravagant claims made for the KJV from some quarters, the fact is that it is not the best English translation. In the 19th century many ancient New Testament manuscripts were discovered. These have made possible better critical editions of the Greek New Testament than what was available to the KJV’s translators. Also, the English language has changed significantly in the last 400 years. I have a copy of The King James Bible Word Book by Ronald Bridges and Luther Weigle (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1994) which defines, in 400 pages, many of the “curious and archaic” words used in the KJV. Newer translations are rendered into the English that we speak today.

The Most Influential. For 300 of its 400 years, the King James Bible reigned as the English Bible. It was often the only book a household owned. Many generations of English speakers learned to read from the KJV. It has left its stamp on the way we use English and has contributed many idioms and phrases to our everyday speech. So strong has its influence been that even the latest and newest translations are measured against the KJV’s standard. Most importantly, it was through the KJV that countless people were introduced to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Though I prefer more modern translations of the Bible for everyday reading, I think that I will always hear the Lord’s Prayer and the Twenty-third Psalm in the lyrical cadences of Jacobean English.

Happy birthday, KJV!

Another Note to the Followers of Harold Camping

2011-04-28T14:27:00.000-07:00

CONCERNING MAY 22, 2011--THE DAY AFTER JUDGMENT DAY

Last July I wrote this post about Harold Camping’s prediction that May 21, 2011 will be Judgment Day. Almost immediately I got replies from some of Camping’s followers. Not wanting to get involved in a protracted, ugly and pointless debate, I wrote this post stating that I would not allow comments from Camping’s defenders. When I check my blog stats, I’m surprised to see how many hits those two posts get. Yesterday, I added yet another post touching on Camping’s end time prediction.

I will, at least tentatively, allow May 21sters to comment on this post. I will be moderating carefully, however. Please keep your comments short and try to address a single point. No matter where you stand on Harold Camping, please be polite and do not impugn anyone’s motives.

If you believe Harold Camping’s teachings, I imagine that you are getting pretty excited about now. May 21 is close at hand. I know that you are convinced that you will be raptured out of this world on that day. I am equally convinced that you will not. We don’t need to debate this. A very short time will show who is right.

I am concerned for you, though.

If you find yourself still on earth on May 22, please don’t panic. Don’t assume that you have been left behind. Don’t worry that the horrible tribulations that Camping has predicted are going to fall upon you. They won’t. You will still be here because there will have been no rapture. There will be no tribulations. So, first don’t panic.

Don’t despair either. The world will go on and you can go on. You can start over. The God of Jesus is a God who gives second chances. Read Luke 13:6 ff. Pick up. Bear up. Move on.

Remember that you are only human. Human beings make mistakes. You made a mistake in believing Harold Camping. That’s all it was: a mistake. Forgive yourself. God forgives you.

Remember, too, that Harold Camping is only human. I know that their is a certain mathematical logic to his teachings, but the most rigorous logic will yield false conclusions if it begins from false premises. Harold Camping has made a mistake. Forgive him, but don’t follow him. And don’t get fooled again.

Give up speculating about the end times. It is fruitless. It always has been. Everyone who ever set a date for the end of the world has been wrong. Jesus warned his followers against such speculation. Begin to live in the now. Love God and do good.

Finally, go back to church. I know that Harold Camping has told you that salvation is no longer available in the churches. He is wrong about that, too. In a good church community, you will find welcome and forgiveness. You will hear the good news that God loves even human beings who make mistakes.

God bless you.

I borrowed the photograph of a Judgment Day billboard from this website.

Tomorrow's Headlines Today

2011-04-27T16:23:00.000-07:00

MAY 21, 2011 -- JUDGMENT DAY?

When I lived in the city, I would sometimes buy my Sunday paper late on Saturday afternoon. That’s when the first Sunday edition of the Chicago Tribune hit the streets. Inevitably I would make a pathetic joke about reading the paper to find out what would happen tomorrow.

Some Christians read the Bible as if it contained tomorrow’s headlines. Typically this involves taking a verse or two from Daniel, a couple more from Revelation, a dash of the Psalms, a pinch of 1 Thessalonians, some current events, a little speculation and combining them in ways that the Bible’s original writers would never be able to recognize. In other words, it involves reading the Scriptures without regard to their historical context, their canonical context, or even the context of a specific verse within a book of the Bible.

The photograph above shows a religious tract that I have kept on my bookshelves for about 19 years now. It is in the form of a newspaper, 20 pages long. It was mailed to me by a group called the Mission for the Coming Days. They claimed that Jesus would “rapture” all true believers out of the world on October 28, 1992, leaving the rest of us behind to face 7 years of tribulation.

They were wrong.

But you knew that, didn’t you? Everyone who has ever set a date for the rapture, the return of Jesus, the end of the world or what-have-you has been wrong. It’s because they have misused the Scriptures. The Bible doesn’t work that way.

The Bible contains a lot of prophecy, but very little in the way of prediction. Prophecy is God’s word spoken to a specific set of circumstances. The prophet’s goal is usually to inspire repentance. Only occasionally do the prophets foretell future events and even then it is in vague terms. Jesus himself refused to set a date for the end and discouraged his followers from speculating about it.

There were allegedly suicides on October 29, 1992. Members of the Mission for the Coming Days thought that they had missed the rapture and took their own lives in despair. Maybe some of them had given their life savings to the group’s work and were now left with nothing. I don’t know. The group’s leader allegedly went to prison, charged with fraud, when it was discovered that he held investments that did not mature until after October 28, 1992. Again, I don’t know for sure.

I do know that the whole story is a sad case of deception, whether intentional or not.

Now radio preacher Harold Camping and his followers are predicting that May 21, 2011 will be Judgment Day. Camping arrived at that date by using a verse or two from Daniel, a couple more from 1 Thessalonians, a dash of personal revelation, a pinch of speculation...you know the recipe. They are convinced that they are right. I am equally convinced that they are wrong.

In that sense, May 21 will indeed be "Judgment Day." It is the day that Harold Camping will be proved wrong. I am confident of this because the Bible doesn’t work the way Camping claims.

To paraphrase one of my mentors, the Bible does not reveal the shape of the future, but it reveals the One who shapes the future. More to come.

Noli Me Tangere

2011-04-24T00:01:00.000-07:00

THAT'S LATIN FOR "DON'T TOUCH ME."

This woodcut, titled Noli Me Tangere, by Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528) has been a longstanding favorite of mine. It depicts the sunrise scene from the Gospel of John where Mary Magdalene meets the risen Jesus in the garden outside of his empty tomb.

Mary turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbouni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" (John 20:14-17 NRSV).

This story is poignant and full of mystery. Why does Mary not recognize the risen Jesus? Why is she forbidden to touch him?

Dürer shows Mary, kneeling before Jesus, her left hand resting on a jar of oil which she has brought to anoint his corpse. Her right hand reaches to touch him. He extends a nail-pierced hand to forbid her. Balancing the composition, the background features the morning sun dawning over a hillside and a small group (more women come to visit the tomb?) approaching on the garden path.

It is a beautiful picture and it makes me laugh. To explain why Mary mistook the risen Lord for a gardener, Dürer has dressed Jesus in a floppy hat and slung a garden spade over his left shoulder. Whether the humor was intentional on Dürer's part--and I suspect it was--it is nevertheless appropriate. What better day to enjoy a little holy hilarity than Easter day?

Blessed Easter!

It is because Mary Magdalene was sent to tell Jesus' disciples the good news of his resurrection that she has been called the "Apostle to the Apostles." I found the copy of Dürer's woodut here.

God's Calling Card

2011-04-21T07:25:00.000-07:00

OR THE DEVIL'S TRUMP CARD?

Feeling a bit put out at the way the Bible is too often (mis)used, I once wrote:

I believe that the Bible is God's calling card, an invitation to conversation. Why do so many people use it as a trump card to end conversation?

In my last few posts, I have argued that the discrepancies in the Bible, especially the Gospel accounts, are due to the fact that the writers have different theological agendas. We do the Bible, and ourselves, a grave disservice if we try to "moosh" its varying viewpoints together into a sort of "Gospel of St. Cuisinart" as John Petty so nicely put it.

This morning on his Exploring Our Matrix blog, Dr. James McGrath linked to two items worth reading. Both highlight the diversity of voices to be heard in the Bible.Thanks, Dr. McGrath!

The first is Kristin Swenson's article at CNN's Belief Blog, "Read the Bible, Even If You Don't Believe It." Dr. Swenson writes:

If you're not biblically literate, you can get along all right, but you're missing out. It's like a cocktail party with raucous conversation. You're invited, but until you know something about the Bible, you'll be stuck talking about the weather at the punch bowl.

Read the entire piece here. It is well worth it.

Also worth the read is Timothy Beal's piece "The Bible Is Dead; Long Live the Bible" at the Chronicle of Higher Education website. A quote from Dr. Beal:

Bible debunkers and Bible defenders are kindred spirits. They agree that the Bible is on trial. They agree on the terms of the debate, and what's at stake, namely the Bible's credibility as God's infallible book. They agree that Christianity stands or falls, triumphs or fails, depending on whether the Bible is found to be inconsistent, to contradict itself. The question for both sides is whether it fails to answer questions, from the most trivial to the ultimate, consistently and reliably.

Dr. Beal goes on to cite Dostoevsky and Blind Willie Johnson. Intrigued? Read the whole article here.

Maundy Wednesday

2011-04-20T12:20:00.000-07:00

REALLY?

I have been blogging about some of the discrepancies found in the Bible, particularly the ways in which the Gospel of John diverges from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). I believe that those differences are due mostly to the fact that John has a different theological agenda than the other Gospels. John has a higher Christology. So, where the other Gospels say that Simon of Cyrene carried Jesus' cross to the place of crucifixion, John tells us that Jesus, always self-sufficient and in control, carries the cross by himself.

Those who hold that the Bible contains neither errors nor contradictions typically explain away this discrepancy by saying that Jesus started out carrying the cross alone, and later, Simon of Cyrene was pressed into service, thus eliminating the contradiction. Unfortunately this kind of harmonizing also eliminates a clear understanding of John's unique theology.

Let John be John, I say. And let each of the Bible's writers speak for themselves. They all fall within the spectrum of orthodoxy, but each proclaims the message in their own way. Rather than explain away their contradictions, let us attend to them and so learn each writer's unique perspective.

A few days ago, a friend emailed me a link to this article. It seems that Colin Humphreys, a physicist from Cambridge has written a book in which he claims to have resolved another discrepancy between John and the Synoptics. In Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus' last supper with his disciples is a Passover meal that apparently takes place on a Thursday. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is actually crucified on Passover, which means that the Last Supper must have taken place a day earlier.

In all fairness I have to say that I have not read Humphreys' book and honestly, don't think I will. So, I am not in a position to assess the strength of his arguments. According to the article referenced above, Humhreys resolves the difference between John and the Synoptics by arguing that Jesus used a different calendar than the one that “was in widespread use at the time of his death....” By that calendar, Passover would have fallen on Wednesday.

This may account for a one day difference in the date of the last supper, but it does not explain the three year difference in John's account of Jesus chasing the money-changers out of the temple as compared to the account in the Synoptics.

Nor does it explain some other, significant differences between John's account of the last supper as compared to those accounts in the Matthew, Mark and Luke. For instance, in John's Gospel there is no mention of the bread and wine that Jesus shared with his disciples; there are no “words of institution.” Instead, John's Jesus gives a lengthy “farewell discourse” and washes his disciples' feet. In short, there is no indication in the Gospel of John that the Last Supper was a Passover meal.

In John's Gospel, Jesus is referred to as the “Lamb of God” (John 1:29, 36) None of the other Gospels uses this title. The exact meaning of the term is hard to pin down (that was probably John's intent) but it is a symbol of sacrifice and salvation and echoes the account of the Passover in Exodus 12. That Jesus, the Lamb of God, would die on the Passover, at the same time that lambs were being slain in the temple at Jerusalem is symbolic, significant and fraught with meaning.

Some may want to explain away every contradiction in the Bible. Not me. John was not writing a history; he was proclaiming the gospel. Rather than conflate the four Gospels and lose their unique character, I think we should let each speak for itself.

The Lamb of God graphic came from good old wiki.

Intellectual Camels

2011-04-16T19:09:00.000-07:00

DOCTRINAL GNATS

I just counted. There are 38 Bibles in the bookcase beside my desk.* Most of them are different translations. There are several other Bibles around the room and more in my office at church. I also have several electronic Bibles on my desktop computer and a few more on my iPod.

I love the Bible. I read from it every day.

In my last blogpost I raised the question “Who carried the cross?” According to Matthew, Mark and Luke it was a certain Simon of Cyrene. The Gospel of John says that it was Jesus himself. Over at the Progressive Involvement blog, John Petty picked up on my post and expanded upon it. I think he says some of the things I said better than I did. Thanks, John!

In previous posts I have dealt with the questions “How did Judas die?” and “How many angels did the women meet at Jesus’ tomb on Easter morning?” These are just a few of the discrepancies found in the various books of Scripture. Some others: Did Jesus chase the money-changers out of the temple on his last visit to Jerusalem before his crucifixion (per Matthew, Mark and Luke) or was it almost three years earlier (per John)? Did James and John ask Jesus to give them the seats of honor in his kingdom (Mark 10:35 ff. ) or was it their mother who made the request (Matthew 20:20 ff.) ? Did the risen Jesus instruct his followers to return to Galilee (Matthew 28:10) or to wait in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49)?

I could go on at some length, but I think this suffices to make my point. The Bible is not a single book. It is a collection of ancient literature written by a variety of people who sometimes disagree about points of fact and even about theology. We understand the Bible best when we read the books as the writers intended instead of trying to conflate them into a single narrative or force a single theological framework upon them. In fact, the points where the writers disagree are usually the most instructive, for it is there that we learn each one’s distinctive theology.**

I once had a discussion about the Bible’s discrepancies with a man who proudly described himself as a Fundamentalist. I think he was rather frustrated with me when he said, “You just read the Bible looking for errors.”

I don’t.

Maybe these guys do, but I don’t. I read the Bible expecting to encounter God’s word. The contradictions are just there.

I also had a conversation with an inerrantist pastor who told me “The ELCA teaches that the Bible is errant.” I had trouble convincing him that we don’t. I don’t believe that the Bible is inerrant, but neither do I believe that it is errant. The Bible does not mislead. Its writers just sometimes disagree.

Then there was the layperson who told me, “If you just accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God you will know peace.” I explained to him that I was quite at peace. Peace doesn’t come from reading the Bible uncritically. Peace is a gift of God given through the cross of Christ. I suppose I could try accepting that the Bible is without error or contradiction, but it would not bring me peace. The cognitive dissonance would likely kill me.

So why am I telling you this? It is because I want you to know that you can be a faithful Christian without surrendering your intellect. You can be a believer without denying the evidence in front of your eyes. No matter what some may tell you, you don't have to shut off your brain when you read the Bible. You don’t have to swallow intellectual camels and strain at doctrinal gnats. Jesus loves you.

*That’s English Bibles, not including 6 Greek New Testaments and a Septuagint.

**If you want to follow my thinking a little further, this means that Christian orthodoxy, as defined by the canon of Scripture, insists upon a few basic points but beyond that allows for a range of theological possibilities. So, e.g. Matthew’s Jewish Christianity and Paul’s Gentile Christianity are both orthodox but Docetism and Gnosticism are out of bounds.

Props to Annie Salness who drew the cartoon that accompanies this post. I found it on her blog, here. She has some beautiful artwork. Check it out!

Who Carried the Cross?

2011-04-13T18:30:00.000-07:00

JESUS OR SIMON OF CYRENE?

The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) agree that the Roman soldiers who led Jesus to the place of his crucifixion compelled a certain Simon of Cyrene to carry Jesus’ cross. Cyrene was a city in what is now Libya. Mark’s Gospel mentions that this Simon was the “father of Alexander and Rufus” which raises the intriguing possibility that Mark expected his original audience to know who these men were. Luke adds the detail that Simon carried the cross behind Jesus.

It is never surprising that Matthew, Mark and Luke agree with one another. They are called “synoptic” (Greek for “seen together”) because they follow the same outline. Scholars have good reasons to think that Matthew and Luke both used Mark’s Gospel as one of the sources for their own writings. I find it much more interesting and instructive to examine the points at which these three works disagree, because it is there that each one’s unique theology can be discerned.

The Gospel of John is quite different from the synoptics. It follows its own outline and narrates many events and teachings of Jesus that are not found in the other gospels.
John 19:17 says quite plainly that Jesus carried the cross “by himself.” Simon of Cyrene is never even mentioned in John’s Gospel. How shall we account for this difference?
Roman Catholics, and anyone else who has participated in the devotion of the Stations of the Cross, will be familiar with the tradition that Jesus fell three times on his way to be crucified. In this tradition, Simon of Cyrene was compelled to carry the cross after Jesus fell the first time. Although the tradition is widely known, it has no basis in the Scriptures. None of the Gospels mentions Jesus falling.

Still, the idea that Jesus started out carrying the cross and that only later Simon was compelled to carry it is one way to explain the apparent discrepancy between John and the Synoptics. It is much the same sort of explanation that my hypothetical Church of Deadwood Dick used to account for a man lighting a cigar and tapping the ashes out of a pipe. As in that thought experiment, though, it might be wise to ask if this is the most reasonable explanation.

The Gospel of John has a high Christology. That is, it presents Jesus as and powerful, much more so than the Synoptics. In John 1:1 ff. Jesus is described as the pre-existent Word of God and as God incarnate. John’s Jesus possesses divine knowledge (2:25). Repeatedly in John’s Gospel (and only in John’s Gospel) Jesus makes “I am” statements which echo the divine name revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. (Some of the “I am” statements can be found at John 6:48. 8:12, 10:11, and 11:25, but read the whole Gospel to find them all).

Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus is depicted as being in charge of every situation. Even when he is arrested, the armed crowd that comes for him falls “to the ground” when he speaks and he is able to demand that his disciples be let go (18:6-9). In John, Jesus’ crucifixion is described as a “lifting up” (3:14, 8:28, 12:32) and “glorification” (17:1). These are all signs of John’s high Christology, as is John’s plain statement that Jesus carried the cross “by himself.”

It is possible to harmonize John’s account with that of the Synoptics’. It is even plausible to say that Jesus carried the cross “by himself” and that Simon of Cyrene also carried it, though I think that this denies the plain meaning of the texts. If one wishes to maintain that the Bible contains no errors or contradictions, then it may even be necessary to resort to such an explanation.

The problem is that explaining away this difference between John and the Synoptics obscures John’s wonderful high Christology. To me the most reasonable explanation for the difference is that John and the Synoptics have different theologies.

I like Gwyneth Leech’s painting of Jesus and Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross in tandem for many reasons, among them Simon’s north African clothing. I found the picture here.

The Church of Deadwood Dick

2011-04-07T10:14:00.000-07:00

A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

When I was in college I read a book titled Deadwood Dick on Deck; Or, Calamity Jane, the Heroine of Whoop-Up, by Edward L. Wheeler. It was a reprint of a story originally published in 1885 as an entry in the Beadle's Half Dime Library (hereafter, BHDL).

I no longer have the book and cannot find the text online, but as I recall it, there was a scene in which a character told a story beside a campfire. As he began his speech he lit a cigar. A few pages later he concluded the story and tapped the ashes out of his pipe.

The BHDL was a disposable entertainment, a pulp magazine marketed toward boys. The stories were hurriedly written, hastily edited and rushed into print. Apparently Edward L. Wheeler made a simple mistake, forgetting what kind of smoking material his character was using. It slipped past the editors and made it into print. It was all quite inconsequential.

Now, I invite you to join me in a thought experiment. Imagine that there is a cult of people who worship Deadwood Dick. We'll call them “Dickians.” It is ridiculous, I know, but bear with me as we further imagine that the Beadle's Half Dime Library is the sacred scripture of the Church of Deadwood Dick. The Dickians read the BHDL to learn about the words and deeds of their idol. They seek to discern Deadwood Dick's will for their lives in the BHDL's pulpy pages.

Next, let us imagine that there is a subset of Dickians who believe that the BHDL is not only inspired, but also inerrant. Their reasoning goes something like this: Deadwood Dick is a straight-shooter, honest and true. Deadwood Dick would not lie. Since Deadwood Dick inspired the writing of the BHDL, and since it is, in very fact, the word of Deadwood Dick, then it must be true, free of error and without contradiction. Given the premises of this thought experiment, this seems reasonable. Doesn't it?

How then, might these inerrantist Dickians explain the apparent contradiction of the character in Deadwood Dick on Deck who lights a cigar and taps out a pipe? I could suggest a few strategies.

For one, they could argue that the word of Deadwood Dick is infallible, but human beings are not. Edward L. Wheeler's original manuscript of Deadwood Dick on Deck was, therefore, inerrant, but error crept in somewhere along the line, perhaps in the process of editing or typesetting. If Wheeler's original manuscript was lost or destroyed, this assertion could not be falsified.

Or, a Dickian inerrantist might argue that there is no actual contradiction in a character lighting a cigar and tapping out a pipe. Perhaps the character finished smoking his cigar in the midst of telling his story, took out his pipe and smoked it until he finished the tale. Or, maybe he had a cold pipeful of ashes in his pocket and was, in fact, still puffing away at his cigar when he emptied the pipe into the campfire. You have to admit that it could be.

These are two possible ways that an inerrantist Dickian might explain the seeming contradiction of the cigar and the pipe. Both explanations are possible and even plausible. So the point of this (admittedly silly) thought experiment is to ask, which explanation makes the best sense of the evidence before us? Is it to say that there was no error in a non-existent original manuscript of Deadwood Dick on Deck? Is it to deny that there is actually a contradiction in lighting a cigar and tapping out a pipe? Or does it make the most sense to say that Edward L. Wheeler simply made a mistake?

More to come.

If any of my reader's owns a copy of Deadwood Dick on Deck, I would appreciate a little fact checking. What was the name of the character who lit a cigar and tapped out a pipe? In which chapter did this occur? Etc. The picture of Beadle's Half Dime Library No. 138 came from this website.

Merry Christmas

2010-12-24T12:55:00.000-08:00

Some of us never tire of puppets singing parodies of Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody. Okay, to be precise I never tire of puppets singing parodies of Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody. And so...

Blessed Christmas to you!

More on the War on...

2010-12-15T09:41:00.000-08:00

CHRISTMAS

I will not name him as I do not have his permission. I am probably quoting him inaccurately anyway. The point is that this thought is not original to me. It comes from a member of my social network, a friend who has been described as "sarcastic and wise." He said,

People forget that "Happy Holidays" includes both Christmas and New Year. So when I wish someone "Happy Holidays" and they say, "No, you mean "Merry Christmas'" I tell them "Fine. Have a *****y New Year."

Yesterday Chris "The Lutheran Zephyr" Duckworth wrote a snarky blogpost about The War on Christmas in which he said:

Even though the Gospel of Luke reports that Jesus brings good news to the poor and sends the rich away empty, to fully participate in Christmas America-style, an upper-middle class income or higher is really necessary, because Christmas in America is about the gifts. (Frankincense, gold and myrrh didn't come cheap, bucko.) And so Christians established Christmas as a holiday that can truly be shared in its ideal form only by those who are well-off, further thrusting Christ into the center of the American yearning for wealth and material goods.

Read the entire post here, and don't miss the comments. Snark begets snark.

Today, Chris posted again. This time his words are more measured. A sample:

And so by the mid-to-late 19th century Christmas was widely celebrated in America, with a growing emphasis on gift-giving and elves, a large man in a red suit and reindeer. Washington Irving's popular writings made celebration of the home and hearth central to our understanding of Christmas. Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, widely read in America by the 1860s, further sentimentalized Christmas as a holiday of kindness and compassion.

This is not all bad, but it ain't Baby Jesus, either. The imperative to care for the poor and to share gifts surely has roots in Christian tradition and teachings, and Christians should be glad that the wider culture promotes works of charity at this time of year. But it is hard to deny that in the 19th century Christmas - the Christ Mass - was branded by a variety of cultural traditions and emphases that had less to do with explicitly religious celebrations of the birth of Christ and more to do with good cheer, generosity, and the comfort of the hearth.

Again, the entire post is worth reading. Find it here.

The detail from Giotto's fresco of the Nativity was found here.

The War on Christmas: Take Two

2010-12-13T17:08:00.000-08:00

TWO OTHER TAKES

Dr. James McGrath is a prolific, and frequently brilliant, blogger. Last Sunday, in a post titled "Christmas: The Christian War on Solstice," he wrote:

Today in my Sunday school class I decided to turn our attention to seasonal matters. Soon, the topic of being wished "Happy Holidays" as opposed to "Merry Christmas" came up. And so I took that opportunity to talk about what I consider one of the great Christmas miracles: the fact that long ago Christians managed to "hijack" the already-existing solstice festival, and turn it into a Christian celebration so thoroughly and so effectively that, more than a millennium and a half later, cultural Christians can complain about the "hijacking" or "secularization" of Christmas without any sense of irony.

Read the rest of his post here.

Meanwhile, over at the Huffington Post, Father James Martin has an article titled, "The War on Christmas is Over...And Christmas Lost." Father Martin advises:

So what's a Christian to do?

For one thing, surrender. Stop fighting. Enough with the embarrassing and endless "War on Christmas." It's embarrassing because we've lost. It's a waste of time because corporations have more financial firepower than churches, and the consumerism will only to get worse. Get ready for Santa to show up around Labor Day. (You laugh now; you won't in a few years.) Can't fight City Hall? Much less can you fight Madison Avenue -- which has more money than City Hall. Give it up.

Capitulate Christmas? Read the rest of his article here.

The Solstice Card illustration came from Dr. McGrath's site.

Keep X in Xmas

2010-12-09T10:28:00.000-08:00

THE HOLIDAY SEASON WOULDN'T FEEL THE SAME WITHOUT PEOPLE GOING OUT OF THEIR WAY TO BE OFFENDED BY NOTHING. --Jon Stewart

My friend is a PhD now, a church consultant, but a little over a quarter century ago, she was one of my fellow students in seminary. And I remember one December when she jokingly admonished me to "Keep X in Xmas."

This was well before the talking heads had trumped up an imaginary "War on Christmas" to keep the culture warriors on alert. Back then there was only a vague concern among Christians that the celebration of Jesus' birthday was being obscured by Santa, Rudolph and Frosty. Some worried that a cultural accretion of tinsel and sleigh bells was deafening us to the angel's announcement: "To you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ, the Lord." I am all for keeping Christ in Christmas, but...

There was no "War on Christmas" then. There isn't one now.

It is time we all faced the fact that we live in a pluralistic society. No one is keeping Christians from keeping Christmas. Ours is not, however, the only religion in town. Many people of many faiths celebrate holidays around the time of the Winter Solstice. It is not an insult to wish someone, whose faith you may not know, "Happy Holidays." If you take offense at a kind wish, it only reflects badly on you.

There is a drug store in my town with a marquee sign out front. This time of year they advertise special prices on "C-MAS CARDS" and other "C-MAS" merchandise. I think I see what they are doing. The sign is only so large. An abbreviation for the word "Christmas" is useful. They are a retail establishment. Offending customers is not a wise business practice. They worry that some Christians will take umbrage if they use the abbreviation "Xmas." So they have taken the "X" out of Xmas and replaced it with "C" for "Christ."

I wonder, though, if they realize the "X" in Xmas is not the English letter "Ecks" at all. It is not a mathematical symbol. It does not signify the unknown. It is, rather, the Greek letter "Chi," the initial letter of "Christos" from which we get our word "Christ." The cruciform letter Chi, which is written "X," has been used for centuries as an abbreviation for "Christ." The abbreviation "Xmas" is not blasphemous. It no more takes Christ out of Christmas than does the abbreviation "C-mas."

Xians who take offense at the abbreviation "Xmas" only show their ignorance of their own faith. Even if "Xmas" were an insult, taking offense would be a betrayal of the Teacher who told us to "turn the other cheek." So this year, I will be keeping "X" in Xmas. My friend was smarter than I even before she got her PhD.

Got 10 minutes? Enjoy Jon Stewart's humorous take on the "War on Christmas" here.

The Fourth Use of the Law

2010-11-26T10:04:00.000-08:00

AND YOU THOUGHT THERE WERE ONLY THREE!

Lutheran theology divides the Word of God into two distinct categories: Law and Gospel. Gospel is the good news of forgiveness by God's unmerited grace revealed in Jesus Christ. The Law is all of the rules and regulations, the shoulds, and shalts and shalt-nots that the Word of God places upon us.

Theologians talk about three "uses" of the Law. Without getting too technical, the first use of the Law is to give order to our life in community. Drive on the right (or left) side of the road. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not commit murder. Clean up after your dog. We need the Law to prevent chaos. This civil use of the Law is sometimes described as a "compass" because it directs our actions.

The second use of the Law is to convict us of our sinful nature. If we examine our conscience in the light of God's Law, especially as it is interpreted by Jesus in Matthew 5, we find ourselves coming up short. Unable to meet the Law's demands, we are driven to seek God's grace. This pedagogical use of the Law is sometimes described as a "mirror," because in it we see ourselves for the sinners we truly are.

The third use of the Law is to teach us, once we have been justified by grace, to live in ways that are pleasing to God. This third use is controversial among Lutherans. Some argue that even for those who have been justified it is impossible to keep the Law. To me it seems that the third use of the Law will always return us to the second. Since Christians are both saints and sinners we will not be able to keep the Law wholly. We will always transgress. We will always be driven back to repentance. This third, pedagogical, use of the Law is sometimes described as a "gift."

I have discovered a fourth use of the Law, one that seems to have escaped the attention of theologians. The fourth use of the Law is to make us feel better about ourselves by condemning others. Other people may be fornicators, dancers, drunkards, homosexuals, Pharisees, gum-chewers, or what-have-you but not us. We're better than that. A friend and colleague describes the fourth use of the Law as a "weapon."

The only problem with the fourth use of the Law is that it is entirely illegitimate. Saying "You hypocrite! Take the beam out of your own eye before you pick at the speck in your neighbor's eye," Jesus roundly condemns the fourth use of the Law.

Why, then, are Christians so fond of it?

I would like to wish a slightly belated "Happy Thanksgiving" to my U.S. readership, and a much belated "Happy Thanksgiving" to any Canadians who are reading this. I cribbed the pic of Charlton Heston playing Moses from the Washingtonian's website, here.

I Got Re-posted

2010-10-29T18:05:00.000-07:00

HOW ABOUT THAT?

I was blog-blocked for a while. I just was not satisfied with anything I wrote. I think the problem was that I had a really snarky little essay that I wanted to write, but it was not appropriate to post here. I finally wrote it just to get it out of the way, and shared it with a few trusted colleagues and relatives.

Before I got that out of my system, I kept trying to write other things. I must have made a half-dozen attempts at writing my last post, the one about the Diakonia Program and Crises of Faith. Even when I got it finished, I was not quite happy with it somehow. Still, I posted it because I thought it was good enough and because a blogpost from me was overdue.

So, I was surprised--delighted, mind you, but still surprised--when I received a request from LivingLutheran.com to re-post that little essay. If you have not seen it yet, LivingLutheran.com is a recently-launched website of the ELCA. Check it out. There is a lot of good content there. Re-posting my piece was the only lapse of judgment I could spot.

Something else you should see, if you haven't yet, is ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson's contribution to the "It Gets Better" project:

Thank you, Bishop Hanson.

Diakonia

2010-10-27T17:46:00.000-07:00

AND WHY A CRISIS OF FAITH CAN BE A GOOD THING

If you were brought to this post by a link from the Augustana College website, the correct post, the one in which I wrote about Dr. Levin can be found by clicking here.

The Diakonia program is a two-year school of theological education for laypeople. The twelve courses that make up Diakonia each last five weeks and are typically taught by pastors. The subject matter includes the Old and New Testaments, Practical Ministry, Theology, Ethics, Lutheran Confessions and Church History. Classes meet once a week for three hours. Obviously this represents a considerable commitment on the part of the students.

I am a big supporter of the Diakonia program.

A handful of ELCA synods have a Diakonia program. The Northern Illinois Synod, of which I am a part, has five sites at which Diakonia classes are taught. I have now taught the New Testament course three times. I find it gratifying to teach people who are so interested in exploring their faith more deeply. Most recently I taught at a brand new Diakonia site. Although I did not accomplish all of my teaching goals, I was pleased to watch the eleven students pull together into a community of support.

Our synodical Diakonia director has said that the program can cause a crisis of faith for some students. Looking closely and critically at the Scriptures may lead some students to question things they had previously assumed to be true. Learning that the Bible was written by human beings, and that those human beings did not always agree with one another, comes as news even to some lifelong Christians.

Hearing that Diakonia might cause some students to have a crisis of faith gave me pause. I had to ask myself whether I, as a pastor, should be in the business of causing faith crises. Most often my job involves inculcating faith or shoring it up. After due consideration, and some discussion with my students, I concluded that my mission as a teacher is to tell my students the truth. A crisis of faith, hard as it may be to go through, can lead a person to a stronger and more informed faith.

Of course, a crisis of faith might also lead to a loss of faith. It is hard for me to say this, but, in some cases that, too, might be appropriate. If taking a clear look at the Bible leads someone to lose their faith, then their faith was misplaced to begin with. They were putting their faith in the Bible, not in God.

Diakonia is a Greek word meaning "service." It is the root of our English word "deacon." St. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, was a deacon, appointed to assist the Apostles in the administration of the church in Jerusalem. His story is told in chapters 6-8 of Acts. I found the picture of St. Stephen above here.

How Many Angels

2010-10-01T17:04:00.000-07:00

CAN DANCE IN AN EMPTY TOMB?

Dr. Arnold Levin taught in the Religion Department at Augustana College, Rock Island, when I was a student there many years ago. He introduced me to the critical tools that scholars use to study the Bible. I don't think I ever told him thank you.

Though it is probably not fair for me to say it, I sometimes thought that Dr. Levin took a special delight in tormenting Fundamentalist freshmen. I remember a particular class session in which he had us compare the resurrection accounts from Matthew, Mark and Luke. He asked the question, "How many angels did the women encounter at Jesus' empty tomb?"

The Gospel of Mark tells us that the women met "a young man dressed in a white robe." Matthew describes vividly how "an angel of the Lord" whose appearance was "like lightning, and his clothes white as snow" descended from heaven, stunning the guards at the tomb and declaring Jesus' resurrection to the women. Those guards, by the way, only appear in Matthew. Luke's Gospel says that the women met "two men in dazzling clothes."

There are several conclusions to be drawn from this. Since, most likely, Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for their Gospels, we can conclude that they both felt free to expand on their material. We can conclude that Matthew, Mark and Luke were more interested in proclaiming the resurrection than in giving factual, newspaper-like accounts of the event. We can conclude that the three Synoptic Gospels were not intended to be harmonized.

Students who came from faith traditions that stressed the inerrancy of Scripture often had a hard time with Dr. Levin. Some of them thought that Dr. Levin was the devil, or at least one of his minions, come to destroy faith. Those students must not have attended chapel on Wednesday evenings.

I used to see Dr. Levin in campus church, paying close attention to the sermons, sometimes jotting notes, occasionally preaching himself, standing to sing the hymns loudly and lustily. Dr. Levin was a person of faith. Perhaps without intending it, Dr. Levin taught me that one can read the Bible critically, carefully, closely, intelligently and even question its facticity and still be a person of faith. I don't think I ever thanked him for that either.

So, let this blogpost stand as my belated appreciation for Dr. Levin with gratitude for the things he taught me.

Danish artist Carl Bloch painted the image of the resurrection accompanying this post. He apparently agreed with Luke (contra Matthew and Mark) that there were two angels at the empty tomb. The Gospel of John, we may note, also agrees with Luke and Bloch.

Even Pretty Good Things

2010-09-13T17:53:00.000-07:00

MUST COME TO AN END

I like to check my Blogger "stats" from time to time. They can be interesting, if not instructive.

For example, my stats show that the vast majority of pageviews for this blog come from the United States. Curiously, South Korea comes in second, with Canada a distant third. I suspect that there may be a bot in South Korea visiting me. A handful of pageviews come from such far-flung places as Germany, the UK, China, Latvia, Romania (Hi, Fr. A!), Japan and Russia.

The "referring URLs" section of my stats shows that most of my pageviews came from Susan Hogan's Pretty Good Lutherans site. If you have not seen it yet, Susan posted this note in the sidebar of her site:

So long …
Dear Readers,

This site launched in early September 2009 as the ELCA entered a critical transition period. It provided a hub for you to find all of the "secular" media coverage about your denomination post-CWA09.

It's also been a place to examine issues together and to lift up your voices. Your response was incredible. Please know that I'm truly grateful.

Now that the year has passed, I'm discontinuing this site to move ahead with other projects. If I reprise the site in the future, I'll let you know. Again, thank you for your generous support.

With gratitude,
Susan
9/10/10

Personally, I am sorry to see prettygoodlutherans.com go. I have enjoyed the regularly updated content, the Lutheran bloggers featured in the sidebar, the links to various news sources, and, well, just all of it.

Bloggers like myself are only opinionated editorialists. Susan Hogan is a journalist.

Susan, if you happen to read this, thanks for a year of prettygoodlutherans, and God bless you in your future endeavors.

The stick figure illustrating this post was lifted from prettygoodlutherans.com. Susan Hogan used this figure to represent bloggers who were featured on her website but who did not provide a suitable photograph. She used the blue bordered stick figure as my picture for quite a while. Funny thing is, I actually look like that.

Catching Up

2010-09-09T09:55:00.000-07:00

DID YOU MISS ME?

Well, it happened. I sold one house, bought another and moved all of my earthly goods from thither to hither. It has been a difficult, but rewarding, process and has necessitated my absence from this blog for a little more than two weeks.

Oddly, the world has not stood still while I was away.

The North American Lutheran Church (NALC) has been constituted. I have promised myself not to be snarky about it. So, you won't hear me comment about the "realignment of Lutheranism in North America" involving only 16 congregations. Nor will I point out the irony of this new church body sharing its initials with LC/NA.*

If I may be uncharacteristically sincere for a moment, I actually wish the NALC well. They may not represent a seismic shift in Lutheranism, but I am sure that they will grow. Many of their constituents will be people I consider friends, colleagues, even teachers and mentors. I understand that their consciences are bound such that they no longer feel they can remain members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). "Go in peace. Serve the Lord."

We have much in common. I truly believe that there is only one issue separating us, and it is not the interpretation of Scripture. I hope that we can stay in touch.

I surmise that the NALC will practice open Communion, at least with those who, like the ELCA, affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Sacrament. I hope that I will be welcome at the NALC's altar rail. Members of the NALC will certainly be welcome at mine. Okay, it's not mine. It's the Lord's table. I will not put any impediment in the way of an NALC member from receiving the means of grace.

Here's a crazy idea: what if the ELCA and the NALC worked out a full Communion agreement? The ELCA has been able to make full Communion agreements with other denominations, why not the NALC with whom we have so much in common? It would be the first such agreement that the ELCA has made with another Lutheran church body. (No one fights like family).

In the meantime, the ELCA's first presiding bishop, Herb Chilstrom lit up the blogosphere with an article posing three pointed questions to those leaving the ELCA. There have been a variety of responses, some downright rude. None that I have seen has answered Chilstrom's first question to my satisfaction. The Bishop asks, Why this issue? What is it about sexuality that became the tipping point for you? Most replies have been to the effect that "It's not about sex. It's about the interpretation of Scripture." All right. I will accept that. Chilstrom's question still stands unanswered. Why is it the intepretation of Scripture about sexuality that has nudged you to leave the ELCA?

Elsewhere on the internet, Father Anonymous has blogged about the Brothers of John the Steadfast, a bunch of Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LC-MS) conservatives **, adopting the motto "Your Grandfather's Church." I commend Father A's blogpost for your reading. I will only add that the LC-MS is not my grandfather's church either.

One of my grandfathers was an Irish Protestant. I do not think that he was particularly observant, though I am told that he recited a ribald toast to the Pope upon occasion. He did have a brother who pastored a spiritualist church, though he did not personally conduct the seances.

My other grandfather was alienated from the Church by an LC-MS pastor. He was not alienated from a life of faith, prayer or spirit. He was simply made to feel unwelcome in Church.

Let me also note the appropriateness of the phrase "Your Grandfather's Church" by a church body that marginalizes women from leadership roles. The LC-MS was not my grandmother's church by any measure.

More to the point, I would not want to belong to a church that has not progressed since my grandparent's day. The world has changed. Startling advances have been made in technology, science and scholarship. The Gospel must be proclaimed in ways relevant to our new and ever-changing circumstances.

Finally, *** I feel a need to weigh in on Terry Jones, the Florida preacher who has garnered undue attention by announcing plans to burn copies of the Quran on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center (WTC). I will not mince words. Terry Jones is a publicity whore and a hate-filled extremist. He does not represent any form of Christianity that I recognize. He does not speak for the God I worship.

To my Muslim neighbors: Just as I do not assume that the terrorists who destroyed the WTC are representative of Islam, I ask you, please, do not assume that Terry Jones is representative of Christianity.

* Sorry about the implied snark.

** "Conservative" is a relative term. That is to say, the Steadfast Lutherans are conservative even for the LC-MS.

*** I usually try to keep these essays around 500 words in length. If you are still reading, thank you for indulging me.

I Wish I'd Written This

2010-08-24T18:46:00.000-07:00

Pondering Pastor Earl Janssen has written a thoughtful Open Letter to Lutheran CORE as they are about to form the new North American Lutheran Church. Here's the teaser:

Please, don’t offer the extreme examples of what you find offensive in the ELCA as normative. You know that great variety exists within the ELCA and will exist even within NALC in a relatively short period of time. Remember Luther’s explanation of the 8th commandment and make that the cornerstone of of your public and private comments.

Please keep in mind that you are not the only faithful Christians with the name Lutheran. Ryan Schwartz is quoted in the August edition of “CORE Connections” saying, “Lutheran CORE will seek to help faithful members of the ELCA and ELCIC to continue to uphold the authority of scripture in an increasingly challenging environment …” Many faithful (to Christ) members of the ELCA uphold the authority of scripture in a way different than you. I consider myself one of those, and will not need your help. In fact, your rhetoric is part of my increasingly challenging environment.

The entire post is worth reading. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

This Just In: Obama is NOT a Muslim

2010-08-20T13:14:00.000-07:00

AND THE ELCA IS NOT A UNIVERSALIST CHURCH

The news broke yesterday that 18% of Americans believe that President Barak Obama is a Muslim. Read about it here. Why do people believe this patent falsehood? It is at least partly because it has been insinuated by fear mongering pundits. The insinuations do not have to be true, they just have to scare people. And why do the pundits traffick in fear? Because it works. It keeps the troops on alert. It gets frightened people off the couch and into the voting booths where they will help elect candidates who will promote the pundits' interests.

Click the cartoon to enlarge.

It seems to me that the charge of universalism that is leveled, falsely, against the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is a scare tactic. Pastors, who should know better, use it to stir up their congregations to leave the ELCA. The sexuality issue by itself may not be enough to motivate some of the laity to vote with their feet. After all, the '09 Churchwide Assembly allowed for a "local option" which means that no congregation will be forced to call a same-sex partnered pastor...or any other pastor for that matter. I know that some bishops have promoted the local option heavily, even offering assistance to congregations that want to append a "no gay clergy" resolution to their constitutions. So, the trumped up charge of heretical universalism is used to scare people who do not bother to check further.

Mnphysicist's theological blog has a nicely written post refuting the charge of universalism in the ELCA. Read it. And if you still think that the ELCA promotes universalism, read it again.

In the meantime, I am left to ponder just what is it about universalism that frightens people? Is it the idea that Barak Obama might get to go to heaven?

I "borrowed" the cartoon from the Progressive Involvement blog, here.

The Apostle Paul Kissed a Boy

2010-08-19T14:15:00.000-07:00

AND HE LIKED IT

If the title of this blog post offends you, then you will probably do well to avoid reading R.W. (Obie) Holmen's book A Wretched Man: A Novel of Paul the Apostle. If, on the other hand, you find the title of this post intriguing, then you will find a lot to like in this fictional portrayal of Paul, or I should say "Paulos." Holmen does not anglicize the names of his characters. Instead he gives them their proper Greek and Hebrew names. Paul is Paulos. James is Ya'akov. And so on.

Holmen gives flesh to his characters. They eat, drink (sometimes too much) and void waste. They feel love, anger, jealousy, joy and sorrow. They fight and make up. Or not. These Apostles are not Sunday School flannel-graph cut-outs, but complex, three-dimensional human beings. Paulos is portrayed as a "rigidly controlled gay man" (quoting from Bishop Spong whom Holmen cites in the book's epilogue) who by tireless effort and strength of personality brings his Gospel of God's grace apart from Torah to the Gentile world. His arguments with Ya'akov and difficult relationship with Cephas (Peter) are believably motivated.

It is clear that Holmen has done his homework. Everyday life in the first century Mediterranean world is evoked with detail and description. The author has also digested a great deal of current New Testament scholarship and woven it seamlessly into his narrative.

Most importantly, Holmen spins a good yarn.

No doubt some readers will take offense at Obie Holmen's speculative portrayal of the personalities who shaped the Christian faith. But if you, like me, are not offended by the idea that the Apostle Paul kissed a boy, then I can recommend A Wreteched Man. You're in for a good read.

Regular readers of this blog will already know that I am a fan of Obie Holmen's blog "Spirit of a Liberal." Observers of popular culture will recognize that the title and subtitle of this blog are lifted from Katy Perry's song "I Kissed a Girl."

In Memoriam

2010-08-16T18:29:00.000-07:00

ROBERT BRATCHER, WHO EDITED MY THIRD BIBLE

My first Bible was a small, gilt-edged King James Version (KJV) with a white "imitation leather" cover. It was given to me in June, 1957, a Baptismal gift from my godparents. This was before my godfather got religion, left his wife and went to live in a commune in Texas. So I am told. I have never known my godparents except by name. I still have the Bible, barely used, in its original box. The cover is yellow with age. I keep it as a memento of what was, arguably, the most important event of my life.

My second Bible was a Revised Standard Version (RSV) in a black bonded leather cover with gold lettering on the spine that says "Helps." This is the Bible I used in Confirmation classes. I still have this one, too. It is falling apart. (It looks a lot like the Bible in the picture above. Said picture was found at this website). The RSV is the Bible version that I heard read in church when I was young. It was based on better textual evidence than the KJV but maintained much of the earlier version's non-standard English usage. The RSV also kept the "thees" and "thous" of Jacobean English in its poetic passages. When I hear the RSV read, it sounds like the Bible to me.

In 1966 the American Bible Society published a paperback new testament in "Today's English Version" (TEV). The cover sported a newsprint design. This was my third Bible. I have at least one dog-eared copy of it around. In those days before Bible translators concerned themselves with gender in language, the New Testament was titled "Good News for Modern Man." A decade later the entire "Good News Bible" (the abbreviation GNB has replaced TEV) was published in a gold hardcover edition. Read aloud, the GNB does not sound like the Bible. It sounds like plain, written English, like a novel or a newspaper. This is a good thing.

Although it has gotten a bit long in the tooth, and even though I rarely use it anymore, I admire the Good News Bible.

Until this week, I did not know the name of Robert Bratcher, the editor who oversaw the translation of the GNB. In the August 10 edition of Christian Century magazine, I read an article, pulled from the Associated Baptist Press, reporting Bratcher's death, at age 90, on July 10.

Bratcher was, apparently, something of a controversialist. A paragraph from the Christian Century article:

"Brachter drew the ire of Southern Baptist fundamentalists in 1981 over his critical remarks at a seminar in Dallas. 'Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible,' Bratcher said. 'No truth-loving, God-respecting, Christ-honoring believer should be guilty of such heresy. To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false god.'"

Bratcher was not pulling any punches. The Bible Researcher website includes a fuller verson of Bratcher's words, which ends with a particularly Lutheran sounding statement. "The locus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. It is Jesus Christ as THE Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do."

Though I do not think I would call it "heresy," I agree with Robert Bratcher that a doctrine of biblical inerrancy is intellectually untenable. Rest eternal grant him, O Lord; and let light perpetual shine upon him.

Dear Godparents, if you are reading this, thank you for the Bible. It means more to me than you can know. Even though you were largely absentee godparents, it's okay. I think I turned out all right. I pray that you have both known God's grace in your life.

God bless.

Brant

God Has A Grammatical Gender...

2010-08-10T18:49:00.000-07:00

NOT A PHYSICAL SEX

God is neither male nor female. In spite of the picture many of us carry in our heads, God is not an old man in the sky. God is not a woman in the sky, either.

Human beings are the image of God. Human beings are female and male. The image of God is male and female.

God encompasses the categories of male and female. God transcends the categories of female and male.

The Bible is a product of a patriarchal culture. It uses mostly masculine images for God. Still, there are a few, scattered, feminine images for God to be found in Scripture. Recognizing the limitations of human language in describing the divine, it is legitimate to use both feminine and masculine images for God.

We can have a personal relationship with God. That is, we can relate to God as we relate to another person. God is not an object. God is not an "it."

We have no experience of persons who transcend the categories of male and female. The English language has no third person singular personal pronoun that encompasses and transcends the categories of female and male.

It is awkward, and nearly impossible to avoid the use of third person singular personal pronouns when speaking about a person, even when that person is God.

I was born and brought up in a time when humankind was collectively refered to as "man" as a matter of routine. The assumption underlying such a use is that maleness is the normal condition of humanity. The corollary to that assumption is that femaleness is a lesser or defective human state. Think about that. It's nuts.

In those distant days, God was refered to exclusively in masculine terms. Old habits die hard. I still sometimes call God "he." When I get called on it, my almost reflexive response is the title of this post: "God has a grammatical gender, not a phyiscal sex." That's pure banana oil, of course, but it usually buys me enough time to finish my thought without getting sidetracked by a discussion of gender language.

Forgive me.

I am writing this post on the second day of a three day symposium in Chicago called "Language Matters." Hosted by the National Council of Churches, the symposium deals with inclusive (or "expansive") language concerns. When it is all over, I am sure that there will be head-shaking, finger-wagging and tongue-clucking from some quarters. But as for me, I applaud the intent of the symposium, pray for its success, and look forward to hearing about its proceedings.

Thirty-five or forty years ago, this clever, though amateurish bit of animation introduced me to inclusive language concerns. Take two minutes to enjoy a blast from the past.

Apparently the Lord WAS in the whirlwind...

2010-08-02T20:41:00.000-07:00

...AND IN THE SOUND OF SHEER SILENCE

In her book Traveling Mercies, Anne Lamott says many good things. Among them:

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

I really do not know how I overlooked it before, but a former ELCA pastor named Mark Herringshaw blogged an angry rant in response to the ELCA's Rite of Reconciliation welcoming 7 LGBTQ pastors on July 25.

Herringshaw says that the tornado that hit downtown Minneapolis last August was God's judgment against the ELCA's sexuality policies. He also says the fact that nothing happened in San Francisco at the reconciliation service was a sign of God's judgment.

Methinks perhaps Pastor Herringshaw is projecting.

On a more positive note, you might want to read a smart blogpost by Marvin Lindsay that provides an interesting historical perspective on our current sexuality debates.

And to further provoke your thoughts, over at Magdalene's Egg, Father Anonymous does a nice job refuting those who would quote one of my old theology profs as "proof" that the ELCA is a universalist organization.

Happy reading!

If the title and subtitle of this post elude you, read 1 Kings 19. "Sheer silence" is the the New Revised Standard Version's translation of the words rendered "still, small voice" in the KJV.

Of Jesus and Vampires

2010-07-30T19:14:00.000-07:00

MAHATMA GANDHI AND A TATTOOED LADY PREACHER

I read it first on the Progressive Involvement blog. Author Anne Rice, who has written novels about vampires and Jesus, announced today that she is leaving Christianity.

"I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life."

I can relate.

If I believed that being Christian involved being anti-all that stuff, I'd be out, too. I am not ready to quit, though. I am not ready to concede the faith to its worst representatives.

On her Facebook page, Rice cites the famous words of Mahatma Gandhi.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

She also provides a couple of horrific examples of Christianity at its worst: Westboro Baptist Church and a "Christian" rock band called, "You Can Run But You Can't Hide." God help us.

She also posted, approvingly, a link to this article in the New York Times concerning the Rite of Reconciliation which received seven same-sex partnered pastors into the ELCA. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is now, unquestionably, a church body with partnered gay clergy. Anyone who has been observing my ELCA knows that this action, inevitable since the 2009 Churchwide Assembly, is controversial and divisive.

Personally, I am proud to be a member of the ELCA and applaud the brave stand that it has taken regarding same sex unions and same sex partnered clergy. Flame on, naysayers, I'm wearing my asbestos drawers.

Nadia Bolz-Weber, the tattooed, emergent, post-modernist and unapologetically Lutheran pastor of House for All Sinners and Saints, was the preacher. Her graceful, gospel centered sermon can be found here. After you have streamed the video or read the manuscript, check out Erik Ullestad's excellent blog post about it.

Nadia Bolz Weber is the author of one of my favorite recent books, Salvation on the Small Screen? 24 Hours of Christian Television. I snagged the picture of Anne Rice from her Facebook page.

Fanaticism, Doubt and Compassion

2010-07-23T12:32:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, Roger loaned me a book, In Praise of Doubt: How to Have Convictions Without Becoming a Fanatic, by Peter Berger and Anton Zijderveld. A short time later, Jeff loaned me You Don't Have to Be Wrong for Me to Be Right: Finding Faith Without Fanaticism by Brad Hirschfield.

I showed the two books to my friend Eric. I asked, "Do you see a theme here?" He replied, "Face it, Brant, you're a fanatic." That is, to my knowledge, the only time that I have ever been called a fanatic and of course, Eric was being sarcastic.

The dangers of fanaticism should be clear to all of us in this post-9/11 world.

Winston Churchill wryly observed that "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." I have been working on my own definition of fanaticism. It is less witty than Churchill's and still somewhat tentative, but I present it here for your consideration.

Fanaticism is dogmatic belief without compassion.

In my earlier thinking, I was toying with the idea that fanaticism is belief without reason, but upon consideration I realized that fanaticism usually has its own internal logic. Also, all religious faith transcends reason. So although I have left reason out of my definition, I do think that fanaticism is marked by its lack of compassion.

Building on that definition, a fanatic is a person who, convinced that they are right, believes that those who do not share their belief system are of less value. Because of this, while a convicted believer might be willing to die for their faith, a fanatic might be willing to kill for their faith.

The two books I referenced above suggest strategies for dealing with fanaticism. Berger and Zijderfeld advocate a kind of methodological doubt as a middle ground between crippling relativism and dangerous fundamentalism. They would subject every truth claim to rigorous questioning. They invoke the principle that "human dignity is inviolable" as the guide for moral deliberation. This, they say, leads to a "politics of moderation." At a time when political and religious conversation is increasingly polarized, some moderation would be welcome.

Orthodox Rabbi Hirschfield's book is written more in the vein of memoir. Hirschfield says that we can, and even should, hold firm convictions, but we must also allow that others are equally passionate and convicted about their own faith. By emphasizing the things we hold in common (e.g. love of God, and the value of life) we may not reach consensus but we can at least respect and understand one another. Hirschfield admits that his vision is idealistic, but insists that it is not naive.

If I am right in defining fanaticism as dogmatic belief without compassion, then less dogmatism and more compassion are the antidote to fanaticism. Showing compassion toward the fanatic will obviously strain one's own faith. I will be praying for more compassion in my own life.

I recently came across two blog posts that epitomize compassion. John Gustav-Wrathall, who blogs as "Young Stranger" is a gay Mormon (a "Moho"!) who has written about Tom Brock, the anti-gay, anti-ELCA Lutheran Pastor who was recently outed by Lavendar magazine. Read this post. And this one.

Illustrating this blogpost are the covers of In Praise of Doubt by Peter Berger and Anton Zijderveld and You Don't Have to Be Wrong for Me to Be Right by Brad Hirschfield. Both books provide plenty of material for consideration.

A Special Note to Followers of Harold Camping

2010-07-05T12:53:00.000-07:00

AND ALL WHO BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD WILL END IN 2011

Don't even bother replying to my blog. I will not publish your comments. I have given Harold Camping's apocalyptic worldview more than enough publicity. Anyone who wants to know more about it can follow the links in my previous post. There is plenty of information there.

I am not interested in debating you. You will not convince me that your belief is true. I am sure that I will not convince you that your belief is based upon false premises. May 22, 2011 will tell the tale. It is not that far off. We will all just have to wait a little while.

I am a Lutheran. I believe that I am made right with God by grace through faith. I do not fear death. I do not concern myself with the date of the end of the world as we know it. I trust that God is in charge of these things. I am not interested in escapism. Grateful for God's gift of grace, I try to spend my life serving God and doing some small good in this world.

Martin Luther, when asked what he would do if he knew the world were going to end tomorrow answered that he would plant an apple tree. This seems to me a healthy attitude.

Rev. Chuck Currie, in the comments to this post on his blog has said:

Anyone who has made a comment here claiming the world will end May 21, 2011 and is still alive on May 22, 2011 is hereby required to make a $2011 contribution to Church World Service.

http://www.churchworldservice.org/site/PageServer?pagename=how_donate

Start saving.

I like that idea. Let me build on it just a little.

If you believe now that the rapture will occur on May 21, 2011, and wake up disappointed on May 22, do not despair. Instead, give up idle speculations about the end times. Then reach out to feed the hungry, visit the sick and imprisoned, clothe the naked...you know...all that stuff Jesus talked about in Matthew 25. Or maybe just plant an apple tree.

AND NOW TO EVERYONE ELSE:

The point of my previous post was that we are all well served by an attitude of humility and perhaps even skepticism regarding our interpretation of Scripture. I have learned in this life that when we think we have everything figured out just right, God usually has a surprise in store. I will return to this theme.

God bless!

It's the End of the World as We Know It

2010-07-04T16:54:00.000-07:00

AND I FEEL FINE

I saw the vehicle in town twice about a month ago. I think it was a shrink-wrapped bus. It was white, had no visible windows aft of the driver's compartment, and was printed on every visible side with Bible verses, admonitions to listen to Family Radio, and most prominently the warning, "May 21, 2011 - Judgment Day."

My curiosity was piqued, so I did what any twenty-first century digital citizen would do: I googled. The results of my search pointed to a radio preacher named Harold Camping, who believes that Jesus will return to rapture all true Christians out of the world on May 21 of next year. Those who are left behind will suffer a five month period of torture and tribulation. Finally, according to Camping, on October 21, 2011, the world will come to an end and the wicked will be annihilated.

Could Camping possibly be right? I am thinking that the bookmakers would give him long odds. Every other doomsday prophet who has set a date for the end has been wrong so far. It might be worth noting that this is the second time Harold Camping has predicted the end of the world. His first predicted date for Judgment Day was September 6, 1994. I am sure that I don't have to tell you it did not pan out.

Please understand. I do not mean to mock Harold Camping or any of his followers. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Camping's sincerity. I simply believe that he is wrong. It is possible to be both sincere and wrong. On May 22, 2011 we will all know one way or the other

Harold Camping puts me in mind of William Miller. If you do not know the story, Miller was a Yankee farmer who, in the early decades of the nineteenth century, studied his King James Bible, along with Bishop Ussher's Annals of the Old Testament, and came to the startling conclusion that Jesus would return to earth sometime between March 1843 and March 1844. At first Miller was hesitant to publish his findings, but eventually he found himself the leader of an interdenominational Adventist movement.

Miller was always reluctant to set a specific date for the Second Coming. Others in the Millerite movement (as it was called) were less reticent. When March of 1844 passed without incident, hasty recalculations were made and the date of Jesus' return was announced as October 22, 1844, a day that later came to be known as "the Great Disappointment." The problem was not with William Miller's calculations. The problem was with his premises. The most rigorous logic will still yield false results if it proceeds from false premises.

William Miller's story ought to serve as a caution, not only to Harold Camping, but to anyone who would put undue confidence in their particular interpretation of the Bible. It is possible to be both sincere and wrong.

The title and subtitle for this blog are borrowed from a catchy little song by REM. The photograph was taken from Rev. Chuck Currie's blog. His entry, and particularly the discussion it engendered, make an interesting read.

SAWC

2010-06-30T18:36:00.001-07:00

SOME SAY "SAUCY"

When a congregation chooses to leave the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, sometimes a minority of the congregation wishes to remain faithful to the ELCA. In these cases, sometimes, the synod forms a Synodically Authorized Worshiping Community (SAWC). The SAWC concept, as I understand it, grew out of the ELCA mission strategy adopted by our Churchwide Assembly in 2003. A SAWC may be a precursor to a new congregation.

In the comments to my previous post, Kelly gave a link to the website for Peace Lutheran, the SAWC being formed for the remnant of her congregation that remains faithful to the ELCA. It's a great website and an exciting new ministry. I did not want the Kelly's link to get lost in the comments thread, so here it is!

Join me in praying for Peace Lutheran, and for all of the SAWC's being formed as congregations disaffected by the ELCA's sexuality policies leave our church body.

On the subject of sexuality, Justin takes on some of the specious reasoning used to condemn homosexuals. Read about it at his Darthjedi blog.

The fireworks came from Peace Lutheran's website. Appropriate for a SAWC celebrating its first worship service on America's Independence Day!

An Eerie Silence

2010-06-24T07:30:00.000-07:00

*CRICKETS CHIRPING*

I know that I have been oddly quiet lately, and I apologize to my loyal readers. Both of you. My silence is not because I have nothing to say. Right or wrong, good or bad, I nearly always have something to say. Nor is it because nothing is going on.

There is, for instance, a fascinating story of homosexual self-loathing and unethical journalism that you can read about at prettygoodlutherans.

There is also a recent meltdown via email from WordAlone president Jaynan Clark to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson. I think Clark's message highlights the fact that the divisions in the ELCA are not just about sexuality, nor even about the interpretation of Scripture. They are also, and perhaps primarily, a clash of worldviews. Read about it at Obie Holmen's blog.

So what is keeping me from blogging more? Just that I am trying to buy a new home and sell an old one. Keeping my house in showcase condition is a never ending task. For a while, then, my posts will be infrequent and sporadic.

I snagged the picture of the world's most famous cricket here. Wanna buy my house?

Sarah's Sharing The Love!

2010-06-15T13:12:00.000-07:00

ALL ABOARD!

My friend Sarah, who blogs as Unholy Pastor Mommy, is riding the positive train. She has sent letters of support to our Presiding Bishop, our synodical bishop and to Carlos Pena, Vice President of the ELCA.

You can read her letters here and here. I love her enthusiasm.

If you have been reading my blog and have not yet sent messages of encouragement to your ELCA, synodical and even congregational leaders, what is stopping you? Let's share the love!

A personal note: Sarah beat me two out of three games of cribbage today. I will have revenge. I found the cribbage image at this website.

Kelly's Sharing the Love

2010-06-14T14:11:00.000-07:00

HOW ABOUT YOU?

At her Progressively Lutheran blog, Kelly has published the text of her letters of support to ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson and ELCA Vice President Carlos Pena (which is properly spelled with a tilde over the "n", but in spite of Kelly's helpful hints, I still can't figure out how to make it work here).

I always enjoy Kelly's lucid writing. Here is an example from her letter to Bishop Hanson:

I fully support the ELCA’s inclusive policies and commend the Assembly’s bold actions. I firmly believe that we have made the right decision, and I have never been prouder to be raising my daughters to be strong members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

I apologize that this letter is long overdue and can never truly express my deep gratitude toward our Church and its unwavering stand to welcome all regardless of age, gender, nationality, socioeconomic class or sexual identity.

ELCA leadership has been the target of much criticism and hate, while positive messages have been few. It takes minutes to write a letter and costs just 44 cents to mail it. Email is even cheaper.

If you support the ELCA's sexuality statement and the rostering of same-sex partnered clergy, why not follow Kelly's example and let our leadership know?

And My Letter to My Synodical Bishop

2010-06-10T10:27:00.000-07:00

This letter is a little longer and more personal as I have a personal relationship with my synodical bishop.

Bishop Gary Wollersheim
Northern Illinois Synod
103 W. State Street
Rockford, IL 61101

June 10, 2010

Dear Bishop Wollersheim,

The turmoil in the ELCA following the 2009 Churchwide Assembly decisions regarding human sexuality and the rostering of same-sex partnered pastors is unprecedented in my experience. These have been trying times for many of my colleagues in ministry and their congregations. I am writing to express my appreciation for the encouragement and leadership that you and your staff provide.

I am proud to be a member of the ELCA and of the Northern Illinois Synod. I am particularly grateful for the support that you have given to those who wish to remain faithful to the ELCA when their congregations are voting to affiliate with other church bodies. The five Synodically Authorized Worshiping Communities formed in our synod are a blessing to us. I am thankful, too, for the ministry of support that you have provided for congregations which have stayed in the ELCA but have been split over votes to leave.

Bishop, I am sure that these are difficult times for you, and I want you to know that I pray for you and your staff regularly. I look forward to seeing you at Synod Assembly. May God bless you.

Sincerely,

Rev. Brant Clements

What do you think? Will Carlos Pena, and the bishops be encouraged by my letters? Wouldn't they be encouraged by a letter from you, too? So quit reading blogs, open up that word processor and write a note of support to our ELCA leaders...and, oh yeah, I know for a fact that a little note of encouragement would make your pastor's day!

My Letter to Bishop Mark Hanson

2010-06-10T09:56:00.001-07:00

This one is a little shorter than the letter I wrote to Carlos Pena. I feel sure that Bishop Hanson does not need to be burdened with more reading, but I have to think that he would appreciate a word of encouragement.

Bishop Mark Hanson
Office of the Presiding Bishop
8765 W. Higgins Road
Chicago, IL 60631

June 10, 2010

Dear Bishop Hanson,

I am writing to thank you for your leadership of our ELCA through the difficult times that have followed the 2009 Churchwide Assembly decisions concerning human sexuality and the rostering of same-sex partnered clergy.

I believe that the ELCA has done the right thing and I continue in my support of our church body.

Please know that I hold you and all of our ELCA leaders in my prayers. God bless you.

Sincerely,

Rev. Brant Clements