Happy Reformation Day; May We Always Be Sempre Reformanda!

By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament

This week many Protestant churches celebrated Reformation Day, in commemoration of Martin Luther’s nailing of his 95 theses on the Wittenberg Door on October 31, 1517, in response to the preaching and selling of indulgences. It is still worth reading those theses, both for their historical significance and for greater awareness of what Luther’s position was on the related issues at the time. Perhaps the key to the whole is found in the 18^th thesis, where Luther indicates his understanding that doctrines must be proved “either by reason or Scripture.” The actual positions affirmed in the theses reflect what is called the “early Luther,” before he developed his more distinctive understanding of justification by faith. The fact that Luther’s views on some key subjects evolved in time reflects the fact that the Reformation was not about the rejection of one completely agreed upon set of finalized theological positions for a new set of finalized theological positions, but about continual reformation (for the church to be sempre reformanda) in light of our best understanding of Scripture (see again that part of his 18^th thesis as the presupposition behind them all).

Of course, our temptation is always to think that our current understanding is the ultimate and that we are beyond a point where our understanding might still need further development through continued study of Scripture, perhaps from perspectives we have yet to consider, or that have yet to be formulated (perhaps due to our own cultural or interpretive blinders). That does not mean we’re prepared to turn our theology on its head at the first proposal to interpret Scripture in a way that conflicts with what we have thought to be true. It does mean that our confidence is not in our own doctrinal formulations, but in the Scriptures, and the more clearly our theological convictions are supported by the Scriptures the more likely any future changes to our convictions will reflect merely nuancing of views that passed the test of time and experience.

The question is not if Luther had it all right when he posted his theses, or later when he lectured on Galatians or something else, or if Calvin got it all right with the first edition or with later editions of his Institutes, or if Wesley got it all right at one point or another of his ministry. The question is, where might I still learn from others today, even from (or with) those with whom I might have serious disagreements, and especially from (or with) those whose experience and whose blinders are different from my own?

Reformation Day reminds us of our need to continue to be humble before God’s Word, recognizing our own perpetually limited grasp on the truth we have discovered so far and our need to go on being taught by Scripture, rebuked by Scripture, corrected by Scripture and trained in righteousness by Scripture so that we might “be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17; NIV). May the Reformation continue, to the glory of God and the blessing of his people!

Watch Your Language

By Sean McDonough, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament

Most readers of this piece will already know that the word “theology” consists of the Greek words for “God” (Theo’s) and “word/speech/account” ((logos). What we sometimes forget is that this logos is our account of God, and not God’s account of himself. Theology walks down the path of human language. Trouble, as it often does, lies on either side of this path.

On the one side, we may be tempted to despair that we can say anything meaningful at all about God. This sentiment has been around for ages, but it is particularly popular in the modern non-Christian world. All our words about God, to cite the popular fable, are just the gropings of blind men describing an elephant. (The twist, of course, is that the enlightened tale-teller knows it’s an elephant – but this never seems to get noted.) Christians, who have experienced God’s Word in the deeds and words of Jesus the Messiah, can steer clear of that danger pretty easily.

The other trap is one to which evangelicals are perhaps more prone; and that is imagining that our language about God is simple and exhaustive, and thus – unlike all other human speech -- needs no qualifications. Indeed, for some people the search for just this kind of unequivocal speech about God constitutes the essence of the theological task.

The first sign that God himself does not seem to endorse this sort of talk comes from the nature of Scripture itself. If the goal of theology is to give a perfectly straightforward, reasonable account of God, we have to admit the Bible does a pretty poor job of it. We have compilations of stories from a distant place in a strange language, none of which explain themselves very much. We have commandments which are rather more straightforward…but while some of them make instant sense (“don’t mislead a blind man on the path”), others remain obscure (“don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk”). Even the clearest summary statements about God can raise some questions even as they answer others: “The Lord, the Lord, compassionate and gracious, showing mercy to thousands and judgment to threes…” So, yes, he is more merciful than judgmental: but how does he decide when to be which?

In response to this we often try to be clearer than Scripture itself. “The most important thing to know about God”, some will assert, “is that he pursues his own glory.” Now, there are any number of Scripture passages that back up this assertion, and thus every Christian ought to heartily affirm it. But as soon as we put the thought into a specific language, and speak it to actual people, problems arise. To take the most pressing one: the idiom “to seek one’s own glory” in modern English carries overwhelmingly negative connotations. The bare statement, “God seeks his own glory”, is in danger of painting a portrait of God as a megalomaniacal dictator, the Kim Jong-Il of a cosmic North Korean kingdom. Surely we must do better than that.

But what can we do? We can’t simply shrink back and refuse to speak about God. He has said and done too much in our presence to make that a viable option. We have to speak. But if we take the Scripture as our guide, we will be liberated to speak of him in a fully human language comfortable with paradox and qualifications. We will be happy to let God’s speech about himself provide the model for our speech about him.

We will also embrace stories as meaningful forms of theological discourse, not mere tales to be moralized or theologized before they are of any use. To return to our example of “God seeking his own glory”: we could rightly devote an entire tome to explaining that God’s pursuit of his own glory is a world away from our pursuit of our own glory, that his pursuit involves embracing those lower than himself rather than annihilating them. Those would hardly be wasted words.

But we could also simply read the story of the crucified Messiah, “lifted up” upon the cross, and see it all in a moment.

Accuracy in Bible translation

By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling Charlotte campus

“Gender Debate: SBC Pastors Denounce NIV

Southern Baptist delegates passed a resolution criticizing the 2011 update and asked LifeWay stores not to sell the Bible translation.”

This was the headline in the Christianity Today Direct e-mail I receive as a subscriber of the magazine, today, July 26, 2011. I clicked through to the website to see what this was about. At their annual meeting in Phoenix in June, the Southern Baptist convention passed a resolution denouncing the 2011 NIV update, and asked their bookstores to not carry it. The accusation is “gender inclusive” and they claim the new NIV is an inaccurate translation.

These are fighting words. In fact we have heard that repeatedly as the publishers have tried to update and edit the NIV to improve the translation based on new scholarship. These attempts have been beaten down and battered by groups such as Focus On The Family, and the Council Of Biblical Manhood And Womanhood. If these claims were true, I’d be the first in line to agree with the objections raised. Unfortunately, they are not.

There are some passages of Scripture which have been used to argue that women should be excluded from leadership in the church and subordinated to their husbands in the home. The Southern Baptist convention has codified this in their revised faith and mission statement (http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp). The difficulty is that many passages of Scripture which we read unthinkingly in terms of gender restricted language turn out to be inaccurate translations. What the new NIV editions have been trying to do is to correct those inaccuracies.

I will give you one of many examples I could cite to give you a flavor for the difficulty. In I Timothy 3:1, we read

It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. ^[1]

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. ^[2]

And now, for the NIV:

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task^[3]

This year we have been celebrating the 400^th anniversary of the King James Bible. It basically was the official Bible of United States of America since the founding of the country practically. For example when Bible reading was mandated in the public schools, it was a King James version that was read. When we quote the Bible we often quote the King James Version. It has been powerfully influential in shaping what we believe the Bible says about many topics. In this verse, the King James Version taught us to see the office of bishop occupied exclusively by men (gender distinctive intended). The radical mistranslation of the NIV suggests that not only men may aspire to be bishops but also women, as they would be included in the “anyone” of this translation. This is the kind of “mistranslation” to which the Southern Baptists are objecting. However, if we look at the original language we learn the following: it is not the Greek word for man, aner. Nor is it the Greek word for human being often translated as man, anthropos. It is a gender-neutral pronoun, most accurately translated “anyone,” tis.

So, which is the most accurate translation? The one with which we grew up and which we memorized and learned to trust as truly God’s word? Or is it this new NIV against which the Southern Baptists delegates have reacted so strongly? I agree that the Holy Spirit has been at work in our world since its beginning, and he has been teaching the church since its birth on Pentecost. I believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and I believe that the Holy Spirit has guided and preserved its translation. Because of this, I believe we must respect traditional understandings and interpretations and translations. However, translators are human beings. They are, like the rest of us, fallen sinners saved by grace, and therefore capable of error in their work. That error may come from their expectations and biases, unintentional or otherwise. Therefore, in my mind, it is imperative that we remain open to the teaching of the Holy Spirit. When we see such obvious errors in translation as those described above, we must correct them. Not to do so would leave the church burdened with restrictions on women not authorized by Scripture because of inaccurate and biased translation. Therefore I would say that we should welcome the NIV which corrects mistakes like this in earlier translations and try to accurately reflect gender when gender is indicated in the original language and inclusiveness when inclusiveness is indicated in the original language. Anything less is bad translation.

---

^[1] New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (1 Ti 3:1). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

^[2] The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2009 (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version.) (1 Ti 3:1). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

^[3] The Holy Bible: New International Version. 1996 (electronic ed.) (1 Ti 3:1). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Reading the Bible in Light of Scot McKnight’s Blue Parakeets

By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament

If you read Christian blogs you are probably already familiar with Scot McKnight’s popular and insightful blog, Jesus Creed. I don’t always read blogs, (Christian or otherwise), but when I do, I prefer Jesus Creed… That is, whenever I go there I find good, sane wisdom. Scot McKnight’s writing is always worth your time. I just came back from a week’s vacation. I brought three books along with me and although I spent some time with the other two books the one book I read straight through (years after everyone else already read it, probably including you) was Scot McKnight’s The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008).

I think it is a wonderful and even very important and easy book on the interpretation of Scripture. It is an easy read and is not the kind of book that is likely to persuade anyone who is already committed to a different way of reading the Bible, but for those who are not already committed to a different way of reading the Bible, who are looking for some initial guidance and/or are willing to let Scot serve as their insightful guide, this will be a very helpful book. (Scot teaches undergraduate students at North Park University and this book is filled with material reflecting that context and clearly would be very useful for students in a context like that, as well as for many other kinds of readers.) The book discusses the tendency to read the Bible as a law book or a rule book or to treat it like a puzzle, and argues for the need to understand it as God’s story in which God spoke to (and through) different people in their days and their ways.

“Blue parakeets” (a reference explained through an observation of bird behaviors at a birdfeeder in the McKnight’s yard) are texts in the Bible or questions that people ask about them that cause us to stop and think again about our understanding of Scripture and how we use it today (see pages 24-25). Scot asks us to face up to the fact that readers pick and choose (or adopt and adapt) which texts we will obey and apply (and he provides plenty of evidence that that is indeed the case) and he seeks to uncover the unwritten and unconscious process of discernment that would explain how we go about that process of picking and choosing so that we can think more clearly about what we are doing and why. Along the way the book emphasizes a number of themes that have become dear to my own heart (and which I have addressed in some of my earlier posts here), including, among other things, Augustine’s promotion of a hermeneutic of love. He also emphasizes the importance of learning to read the Bible with the Great Tradition (but not through the Great Tradition).

I am slightly uncomfortable with some of the language used here and there (like “Is this passage for today or not?”; page 25), but Scot clarifies (I think) that it isn’t ultimately about some passages being for today or not but about whether they are to be applied/obeyed/practiced today and in our culture (or in other times and cultures) in the same way as would have been expected for the original audience or if they may serve as “blue parakeets” that can lead us to stop and think and point us to something beyond the original context and inform our understanding and behavior in different ways that are also informed by the rest of Scripture and our ever-developing understanding of creation and culture. (Scot would compare and contrast “our days and ways” with “those days and ways.”)

By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute

I just hosted Will Willimon at a pastor’s event. His bio includes the fact that he has written sixty books. Do the math. Will Willimon is sixty plus years old. He has written sixty books. Aside for this fact about him, I really liked him.

It has taken me over a year and a half to write my little book and I am still not finished. But, it is this monthly obligation—opportunity—to blog to you that has sent me scurrying to my anthology of modern poetry.

E.E. Cummings has a wonderful little poem called [a man who had fallen among thieves]. In it he speaks of “a man who had fallen among thieves lay by the roadside on his back dressed in fifteenthrate ideas.” “Fifteenthrate ideas.” That’s me on most days. Asked to periodically pull my way away from the minutia of my administrative position here at the seminary, asked to pull my way away from the settled, undisturbed pond of my own middle age lifestyle, you would think I could come up with a first rate idea at least once a month that could provoke or cajole, or at least mildly stimulate another person.

I find that most of the time I wake up in the morning with a head full of fifteenthrate ideas. They actually seem like first-rate ideas when I am between that lukewarm time period between twilight and dawn when it is difficult distinguishing between dream and awakenness. But, when the sun comes up and the light shines on these great ideas, they fade like a bad pair of jeans.

And then I think of a pastor who every Monday morning must look deep into the lens of Scripture—every week—and the expectation is to craft a new sermon full of first rate ideas for the next Sunday. He or she has to start all over again, every week., month after month, year after year. From the perspective of the pew, is there anything worse than sitting down to a sermon full of fifteenthrate ideas?

Don’t get me wrong; Scripture is filled to the brim with first-rate ideas. Christ’s atoning work on the cross, as it finds its way through the annuls of the Old Testament and as it bears fruit in the final pages of Revelation, is the ultimate great idea. But, why is it that most of us have to be convinced of this every Sunday? Most pastors find their sanctuaries filled with expectations of something more than the simple call of the Gospel. They want something with a little more pizzazz, a bit more luster.

Why is this? More to the point, why am I stuck with this fifteenthrate idea in writing this blog?